I don't want to ask what's wrong with it, I just want

>What should've been in the next generation fighter in your opinion instead of stealth?
>I don't want to ask what's wrong with it

I'll give you a hint: stealth, and frankly most of the actual technical features and capabilities of the plane itself, have nothing to do with any part of what's wrong with it.

>instead of stealth

This is like saying "instead of jet engines"

Everything after this is going to have stealth, and other things. Stealth is now a prerequisite to even play the game.

>>32489270
>This is like saying "instead of jet engines"

/thread

>>32489254
So, is it perfectly fine but mismanaged?

>>32489277

Pretty much. Too many outsourced parts, too much insistence on fixed profit margins per plane sold, and a traditionally terrible combination of evolving software requirements and horrendous technical complexity in systems integration, bleeding out from the program's systematic mismanagement up until 2010.

File: 500 million dollars in one picture.jpg (347KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 1600x1067px

>>32489277
The issue the JSF program was that they kept adding on features without adjusting the projected timeline and budget.

The original idea for the JSF was to have a common airframe replace the F-16, F-18, and Harrier. However, the DoD realized that they could mature a ton of technologies with the program, keeping increases in cost per aircraft low while saving time and money by getting technologies that could be applied to various other platforms.

For example, they developed a special RAM coating for the F-35 that's significantly easier to maintain than what's on the B-2 and F-22. The plan is that this coating can be used on future stealth aircraft and retroactively applied to the F-22 to reduce operating costs, saving far more money than it costed to develop.

The avionics were another area - the F-35 has incredibly advanced sensors and avionics that even outpace the F-22 in some areas. Those were expensive to develop, but now that they've been developed, elements of the avionics/software are planned to be used on the F-22 and B-21.

Even the engines are a part of this - the B-21 will use the F135 engines of the F-35.

The problem was that they never adjusted the project timeline/budget that was set at the very beginning of the program - before the X-35 ever flew - and only bothered to address that in 2010, when the JSF was originally supposed to enter service.

Swarms of cheap autonomous prop planes would be better

Imagine literally have hundreds of thousands of self-deploying drones that can land on any strip of road
Refueled & Rearmed autonomously too

>>32490023
Isn't that the next next gen?

>>32489989
But why is any of these bad? Expensive yeah, but we're not in short of fighters. What people claim is F-35 is inherently bad which is what I'm trying to address.

>>32490023
Ok Syfy.

>>32490122
Remember the clickbait articles claiming the F-35 can't outmaneuver an F16, or can't fire its gun, or its helmit doesn't work. That shit sticks around. Big mil projects are a punching bag for every blog across the net.

>>32490023
Way too early for that.

>>32490122
Because people love getting riled up over things, and the F-35's an easy target because it's big, easy to misrepresent, and supposedly easy to "fix" (cancel it).

Whining about the F-35 lets people who want to seem like they care but don't want to put enough effort in to really understand the issues act like they're being helpful. If people really cared about irresponsible military spending, they'd be all up in arms about things like
>Army/Navy rivalry so bad that we've procured entirely new aircraft and forced unnecessary changes to designs lest they be caught using "the other guy's" planes
>Marines being a bloated army within-an-army
>VA being so incompetent that it's just expected that a veteran will have to rely on charities to get by
But these issues aren't something that can be solved so easily, so people don't care.

>>32490023
Iraq shot down over 100 US drones in the 2nd gulf war. Drones for air superiority are a really, really bad idea.

>>32490363
Were any of those drones capable of spotting a missile launch/radar lock then maneuvering?

Take the tech companies are inventing for autonomous cars and apply it to drones.

>>32490409
>maneuvering against a SAM in a prop plane


El oh el

File: antiF35memes.jpg (752KB, 1430x1356px) Image search: [Google]

752KB, 1430x1356px

>>32490122
>What people claim is F-35 is inherently bad which is what I'm trying to address.

You answered your own question. "It's bad" is meaningless drivel.

This anon gets it >>32490232

>>32490488
you can pull G's in a prop plane too...

>>32490554
>pulling G's is the most essential part of evading missiles.

El oh el

>>32490651
>implying it isn't

Bet you think you can outrun missiles

>>32490705
Evading missiles, in general, is pretty fucking difficult unless you're at longer ranges. See: https://youtu.be/6YMSfg26YSQ

You CAN outrun missiles in certain scenarios my dude and you most definitely do not need to pull insane amounts of G's in every scenario. Speed and energy is important, prop planes lack these compared to fighters.

It's easier to hit a slow prop plane with a AMRAAM than it is to hit an Su-27 or similar modern fighter. Do you disagree?

>>32490122

actually we are getting short of fighters.

>>32490816
super sonic prop planes do exist/have existed
nor do jet fighters spend all their time at max speeds

An AMRAAM costs 2 million dollars
How much does some cheap piston prop drone need to cost? Less than that, thats for sure.

>>32491230
>supersonic prop planes do/have existed

Am I being trolled.

You wouldn't need an AMRAAM-D for a prop plane and a quick peek on Wikipedia shows the unit pricing of the AMRAAM-C to be around $400k.

Any prop plane that costs less than $2mil will not have any meaningful capability outside reconasiance.

>>32491230
>super sonic prop planes do exist/have existed

Getting into the transonic/supersonic region in a dive isn't what you are describing.

And a prop plane that could go supersonic isn't going to cost the same as a civilian Piper Cub.

>>32491230
>super sonic prop planes do exist/have existed
Let's see some sources anon.

Give it two 25mm autocanons, maybe 4 or even 8 in special configurations.

That would make it sufficiently badass to replace the a-10

>>32491230

no they have not you fucking retard.

>>32492058
>>32492145
He might be thinking of the one that had a supersonic propeller and thought it made the plane itself supersonic.

>>32489238
One F-35, one F-36, one F-37.

Three contractors.

Mandatory rule to re-use essential parts (radar avionics landing gear computers...)
Everything else different.
Fuck commonality.
Twin engine version with a pair of existing, reliable and proven engines. Possibly with IR stealthy exhausts.
Dedicated entirely new engine for the B version based on the harrier engine. Possibly using smaller thermoreactors dedicated to VTOL here and there to distribute power, effort, and heat better.
No internal bays on the B. Too heavy. Internal gun instead.
Sleeker design (flat belly) wider body, larger wings (think A12) for the A and C, with more room internaly. Possibly delta shaped. No side bays for sidewinders either.
Detachable stealth bays mounted on pylons able to carry up to a BLU109 underwings.

And most importantly, not trying to slap everything at once, virtualise everything software based to allow for more modularity (adding or changing computer systems) as well as easily adding new functions to the combat system.
Also only having one big screen clustered with infos is stupid as fuck and doesn't provide the man machine interface any advantage in terms of ergonomy. Adding more fail safe screens for essential data while keeping a big display for combat situation may have been slightly less retarded.

Also, building something very very rugged from the beggining. And keeping additional space for smaller aesa antennas to be slapped around the aircraft, for more coverage, more efficient ECCM and EW, and possibly reaching a certain level of active cancellation.

Everything else would be the work of coders. Main software would be way more simple, modules could be worked on without being agonising to fix.

There, you got yourself the basis for three nice airplanes.

>>32489989
>Even the engines are a part of this - the B-21 will use the F135 engines of the F-35.
Correction: It has been speculated that the B-21 will take advantage of the F135's advancements or use F135s themselves. Nothing confirmed as of yet. Personaly, I think they might wait for the next gen of variable intake engines or switch to them soon after they're produced.

File: Screams Externally.gif (929KB, 264x320px) Image search: [Google]

929KB, 264x320px

>>32492203

File: 1469673415915.jpg (102KB, 1080x810px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1080x810px

>>32490705
Shitty bait

>>32490705
Missiles can easily be outrun you faggot. They have a limited rocket motor, once it is done and just relying on the speed it has left you can fly right away. So if you just turn around at a certain range you defeat the missile, it isn't something crazy.

>>32489238
More range, the thing was clearly designed with the european front in mind. Now though we are pivoting to the pacific where much longer ranges are required. This problem is made worse by the fact that we are suffering a major tanker shortage.

>>32490232
Where the hell have you been? People bitch about the VA a lot more than they do the F-35.

>>32492203
I think you're an idiot. You need them all on the same basic airframe so you can actually afford them all. Imagine how expensive it would have been to procure three entirely airframes. It would have been unfeasible. None of the services would get the amount of aircraft they needed, and that is of course assuming that their program isn't cut for cost overruns because they're the only service paying for it.

Everything you said about the B is retarded. You need the internal weapons bay to keep it useful as a top of the line stealth aircraft. It does not require an internal gun to do any of its missions. You shouldn't use older engines when you can have the F135, it is an amazing piece of work.

>And most importantly, not trying to slap everything at once, virtualise everything software based to allow for more modularity (adding or changing computer systems) as well as easily adding new functions to the combat system.
They did that.
>Also only having one big screen clustered with infos is stupid as fuck
There are already multiple panels. You can even see them in use in some videos.

>Also, building something very very rugged from the beggining. And keeping additional space for smaller aesa antennas to be slapped around the aircraft, for more coverage, more efficient ECCM and EW, and possibly reaching a certain level of active cancellation.
You simultaneously want to slim down the aircraft because they're overweight AND do this? The level of cognitive dissonance here is staggering. No, this is not needed.

>>32492223
But unfortunately they decided to make planes fucking slow in favor of 'muh sdtealth' instead of just ensuring everything had mach 3+ cruising speeds like we've had the technology for since the 60s.

>>32490363
>Iraq shot down over 100 US drones in the 2nd gulf war

The difference between drones now and back then is the same difference between helicopters in Vietnam vs Korea.

>>32492233
In everything in engineering, you have to make compromises. You can't have a mach3 plane be maneuverable and have all the sensors and RAM. No RAM today could take Mach3

>>32490363
>wat?

File: this is you.jpg (666KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 1280x1024px

>>32492232
>You need them all on the same basic airframe so you can actually afford them all.

No, you don't. Once you are making 300+ of an airframe there is no further cost savings to be made. Seeing as how the USA is buying 500+ of each variant they therefore would achieve the maximum cost savings possible. The Lockheed designers of the F-35 have even admitted to this fact. The rest of your post clearly demonstrates that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Please lurk more.

>>32492239
You dont need maneuverability if you are faster than everything else, just drop a missile out the back (internal storage that is propelled out backwards instead of opening anything, for aerodynamic purposes) and off it goes at mach 5 with its 30g turns or whatever missiles do these days

>>32492232
>You need them all on the same basic airframe so you can actually afford them all.
Need to use the same parts and materials and production lines
Doesn't mean you have to have the same airframe

Regarding airframes, they're an increasingly marginal part of the overall cost, even with the components being farmed out to Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and Lockheed itself. On the F-35 I think the airframe costs are close to or possibly less than 50% of the program's development expense.

>>32492252
Theres literally no reason why you can't build a bigger and faster and longer range missile, to take out your bigass fucking mach 3 bomber

File: feelsbad.jpg (11KB, 277x329px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 277x329px

>>32492283
>Theres literally no reason why you can't build a bigger and faster and longer range missile, to take out your bigass fucking mach 3 bomber

Literally the reason why they cancelled the XB-70.

>>32492283
Then make a mach 6 bomber
fasdt is only importance

Humans are not limited in how fast they can go, only in how many gs they can sustain. An aircraft with ample time to get up to cruising speed and altitude pointed in the right direction will always be able to outrun a missile that has to launch and accelerate even at its higher G capabilities.

Just go fasdt and if that doesn't work go more fasdt.

>>32489238
>I just want to hear your opinion on what else could've been improved?
it's too late for that now. the basic airframe layout of A and C versions was compromised by the requirements of STOVL version B.
this is not something you can fix by throwing features at the plane. in fact, you make it worse as it gets heavier.
it's got so bad, that the official line has become "it doesn't need to perform, it has all this advanced electronic gear". well guess what, eventually everyone will have all the gear, but they'll put it on a platform that can turn and go fast.

now you want to throw quotes and me, comparing performance to F-16, F-18. yeah, so it's slightly better that planes designed in 1970's. want a fucking medal for that? try comparing it with Eurofighter, Rafale, or russian 4+gen instead.

>>32492295

Combat air exercises suggest that they really can get away with it. The F-22 is already due for replacement or increased fleet anyway; we can make up for the kinematic shortcomings of the F-35 with dedicated air superiority fighters.

File: J20.jpg (79KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1600x1066px

>>32492300
maybe they can get away with it against current threats.

but we're going to be stuck with the F-35 until at least 2070.

>>32492300
>we can make up for the kinematic shortcomings of the F-35 with dedicated air superiority fighters.
too bad they'll replace F-22 with more F-35s

>>32492294
Sprint missile, in service 1972, accelerated to mach 10 in 5 seconds, the obviously unmanned missile can accelerate far beyond any manned airframe

>>32492313
>but we're going to be stuck with the F-35 until at least 2070.

Only if Congress is satisfied and convinced that it doesn't need a replacement.

File: NLbfGO6.jpg (54KB, 600x871px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x871px

>>32489270
Fucking this.
>>32490537
Here you go.

>>32492250
>>32492272
Nope. Airframe. You seem to be missing the point entirely. Remember, you don't magically come up with these designs. You are having three entirely different programs. Each of these airframes requires a separate program. These separate programs mean a shitload of development costs, which would in all likelihood far exceed the program cost of the F-35 by a substantial amount. Each of these programs would have its own problems. Its own cost overruns. Its own delays. Would a lone service be guaranteed to stick it out and pay this massive amount that could be spent elsewhere? Would Congress be guaranteed to stick it out, or would they do something stupid and force one ailing program to shut down in favor of a modified version of another?

Instead, by consolidating all three aircraft into one program, everyone benefitted. The Air Force took an "undue" portion of the costs upon itself for the program, freeing up Navy and Marine Corps money to go elsewhere, and helping them to be able to procure the thing in the first place. Further, the F-35 program was so big that it was "too big to fail", meaning Congress would be forced to stick with it even if they didn't want to, thereby ensuring that everyone got the plane they needed in the end. Further still, the F-35s aren't actually as similar as one might think. Most of the systems inside of them are, but airframe wise, Congress has complained about the lack of commonality, indicating that even though they all were in the same program and have the same origin, the aircraft was significantly modified for each services' needs.

>>32492232
>You need them all on the same basic airframe so you can actually afford them all.
But anon, what you don't realise is that none of the actual A B and C versions share the same airframe. Wings are different. Fuselage is different.
The only commonality obtained by LM is a form factor commonality. Inside, there are already three different aircrafts with little commonality.
>>32492272
ditto

>Imagine how expensive it would have been to procure three entirely airframes.
It's already very expensive and price won't go down.
And it's expensive because they tried to fit 3 different airframes around the same elements, and failed systematically.
Building three different aircrafts starting from zero would have been cheaper.

>None of the services would get the amount of aircraft they needed, and that is of course assuming that their program isn't cut for cost overruns because they're the only service paying for it.
That's exactly what's happening with the current F-35s. Especially with foreign clients.

Also what >>32492250 said. The US navy could afford the Super Hornet. Why ? Sure the airframe is kind of simple and cheap. But accordingly to some reports, the F-35 should not have been more expensive than the SH (it's not and will never be). So what's the big deal ?

>They did that.
Not enough it seems considering the problems they had with absolutely everything software based.

>You simultaneously want to slim down the aircraft because they're overweight AND do this? The level of cognitive dissonance here is staggering. No, this is not needed.
Hint : wing loading. The thing is not gonna be very agile to begin with. There's useless weight gain, and there's useful weight gain (see : B's gun pod). Having a wider more elongated wing is a useful weight gain. Slapping 3 bays around the belly with their rails, pantographs and internal systems for 6 missiles, two of which having to be AIM9s, is a useless weight gain.

>>32492361
>Having a wider more elongated wing is a useful weight gain.

That's not necessarily true. A wider and elongated wing has more drag and reduces the top speed of the aircraft.

>>32492361
>But anon, what you don't realise is that none of the actual A B and C versions share the same airframe. Wings are different. Fuselage is different.
see>>32492360

File: Eurofighter_Typhoon_FGR4.jpg (767KB, 3840x2560px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 3840x2560px

>>32492369
yeah because top speed of f-35 is amazing compared to aircraft with low wing loading

>>32490363
What? Are you counting MALDs, or something?

>>32492373

That is completely besides the point. There are inherent tradeoffs to having bigger wings.

>>32492331
Ive done some numbers and it would be incredibly hard to hit a mach 6 plane at altitude with that missile even if it flew directly over the launch site. Of course if the missile were able to launch while the plane was still outside of its effective range to intercept it, it would be easier, but the plane can just not fly into what amounts to a ~25 second radius around the launch location and be out of danger the whole time.

And thats being generous assuming the plane was only flying at 25 thousand feet.

>>32489238
>what else could've been improved?
Not much, practically speaking.
It'd be nice if they'd built it lighter.
It'd be nice if the F136 were an option.
It'd be nice if someone else had a comparable offering to compete with it and keep Lockheed on their game.
It'd be nice if it had cheek arrays, or at least one.
It'd be nice if it had more missionization options, instead of carrying everything all the time.
It could... look better?

I don't know, I can't think of that many things that would've been doing differently.

>>32492409
>would've been worth doing differently*

>>32492409
Cheek arrays are a meme. AESA already beamforms to give the f-35 a 120 degree fov, basically a flat box instead of a cone like traditional radars.

>>32492369
Larger wing area impacts top speed and fuel consumption at low altitude. At high altitude, it can actually improve speed and fuel consumption, by virtue of lower induced drag.

Given the F-35's primary role as a low-observable interdictor/strike aircraft, performance and efficiency at medium to low altitude is important. Higher wing loading in this case can greatly improve combat radius in high-threat airspace, where low-altitude penetration is often warranted.
>>32492294
>>32492391
>mach 6 airplane
Wew lad

>>32492435
If a missile can do it a plane can do it. You just need a whole lot of room if you want to turn around and not die.

>>32492450

what tactical purpose does going mach 6 give a jet?

>>32492450
>If a missile can do it a plane can do it.
An air to air missile can do it because it uses a high performance rocket motor that burns out in approximately three seconds. Surface to air missiles are a bit longer. Airplanes need to sustain powered flight for hours on end, and air breathing mach six engines do not exist yet.

>>32492450
>If a missile can do it a plane can do it.
Not for long. The SR-71 was and still is pretty much as far as you can push sustained supersonic flight. Any faster and it's only a matter of time before your airframe turns to spaghetti, like steel beams in the WTC.

>>32492461
Outrunning missiles, since you dont have to go faster than a missile, you only have to go fast enough that they cant catch you until they run out of fuel.

>>32492462
Im sure science can solve this with proper motivation

>>32492468
Ive been half a century since we built that, there is no way we couldn't make something better today if we wanted to, even if we used the exact same design but built it out of more advanced materials.

>>32492486
as a former materials engineer turned fighter flyer... you're wrong, shut the fuck up, oh god why did i spend the entire night playing old video games

>>32492486
A "better SR-71" and a "mach 6 SR-71" are two very different goals.

>>32492496
>>32492468
SR-72 program is conceptualized to go mach 6, senpai.

Demonstrator flights will be held in the early 2020s.

Not that guy, but you are not entirely correct.

>>32492513
>Demonstrator flights will be held in the early 2020s.
>will be held

Lets not get ahead of ourselves. AFAIK there's been zero funding allotted by the Air Force Research Lab or any of the three letter agencies for this hypothetical plane.

>>32492531
They have allocated funding for the engines and composites.

>>32492503
You need to believe anonymous. Anything is possible if its not impossible.

I have an incredibly large head. My trump hat wont fit me even on the last snap. Im also a skeptic, a pyrrhonian. And when you exist in ataraxia, not taking anything as absolute, you become open to instead taking all things as potentially probable, to varying degrees. Freed from the foolishness of empiricism that lags us behind and forces us to think only in terms of what we think we know, you can be receptive to the universe, and function on what seems reasonable to you.

Case in point, i have absolutly no idea about material sciences or aircraft engineering or anything, but i 'felt' that a mach 6 plane should be possible, and this friendly anon has confirmed it >>32492513

Listen to the conceived and not the observed, anonymous, being sure of anything is a horrible mistake.

>>32492432
240 degree fov is not a meme

>>32492546
Cheek arrays are less powerful and the wings and body give you a pretty big blindspot.

>>32492360
Are the F-35s, in their current states, and considering the delay in procurement, a success ?
To me the answer is no. The planes have been funded. They have been supported. They have been funded more. They're still not close to the operational capabilities they were supposed to have. The airframes are even still getting patched up when they can be patched up.

It's a monolothic program, and it's lackluster.

Had they been 3 different programs, you would have had two more chances at one or two of these being on schedule and cost effective.

>Each of these programs would have its own problems. Its own cost overruns. Its own delays.
You don't know that. What we do know is the current state of the current program. We don't know how a dedicated program, say, for the navy, would have turned out to be.
There are legions of well managed programs, and legions of badly managed programs. A single program dedicated be the corner stone of an entire force needs a high degree of trustworthyness. Trying to fit three programs into one only makes it even more difficult to reach.

>Would Congress be guaranteed to stick it out, or would they do something stupid and force one ailing program to shut down in favor of a modified version of another?
Well, what did they do with the F-35 ? For now, nothing.

>Further, the F-35 program was so big that it was "too big to fail", meaning Congress would be forced to stick with it even if they didn't want to, thereby ensuring that everyone got the plane they needed in the end.
And that's a very dangerous way to think.
When something is "too big to fail" you don't have any incentive to do the best job you can. That's the BIGGEST problem of the US military industrial complex right now. Program late ? Cost twice more ? Doesn't respect specs ? No worries ! It's too big to fail !

Which means in the end this program is not designed as a weapon for the US armed forced, but as a cash cow for Lockheed Martin.

And that's not good.

File: X-15 heat damage.jpg (40KB, 470x350px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 470x350px

>>32492513
Yes, but for how long?

The X-15 went mach 6 before the SR-71 even entered service... but not for very long.

File: 1479586217226.jpg (173KB, 1600x1024px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1600x1024px

>>32492203
okay, your entire post is pretty retarded but I'm going to focus on your ideas for the F-35B

>Dedicated entirely new engine for the B version based on the harrier engine. Possibly using smaller thermoreactors dedicated to VTOL here and there to distribute power, effort, and heat better.

You realise using the harrier engine configuration would make it almost impossible for the fighter to go supersonic (a key reason for the muhrines and the Royal Navy actually wanting this fighter) because the jet gas is directed through four extremely small pulse jets? And that the X-35 - the bare bones prototype - took off vertically and then flew supersonic during testing, as did the Yak 141 about a decade earlier using a similar lift fan - afterburning engine configuration? A supersonic VTOL jet is not only feasable and ENTIRELY possible, but is a vital aspect of the F-35B design, and scrapping the entire system and basing it instead on the lift system of a 50 year old experimental transonic light attack aircraft is extremely stupid and would deprive the muhrines of any reason to support the project?

>No internal bays on the B. Too heavy. Internal gun instead.

For what purpose? An internal gun has limited range and is hopelessly outmatched in combat against other fighters or even handheld SAM systems. This means that the fighter will be going into EVERY mission with some sort of external payload, which would almost certainly compromise its VLO ability to a great extent, therefore compromising another key aspect of the F-35 concept.

You realise that what you have proposed for the F-35B is essentially an expensive harrier? Which is exactly what the Muhrines, the Royal Navy, and almost every other customer of the B model DO NOT WANT? The F-35B is the only VSTOL aircraft today that offers supersonic performance and VLO capability, and that if you ditch both of these we may as well just strap more PGMs on our harriers for what it's worth.

>>32492561
It will be powered by a ramket scramjet hybrid, so theory wise as far as the 71, program wise this is a metric too.

>>32492546
Its not a linear FoV.

If you're fighting even a nearly comparible opponent, they're going to detect you (especially from a side-aspect) far, far earlier than you could detect them with a side AESA against their front-aspect.

I'd actually put money on a 4th gen doing it.

>>32492557
>Are the F-35s, in their current states, and considering the delay in procurement, a success ?
Absolutely.
> They're still not close to the operational capabilities they were supposed to have.
They've reached IOC. The next block upgrade should be officially happening any day now. They are ready to be put into combat. The USAF is going to be deploying them in Europe next year. The USMC is deploying them into the Pacific.

>You don't know that.
No, I don't know that. However, given that the vast majority of aircraft programs in particular in recent history have suffered from the same problems, it is the best bet we have, instead of assuming that the planes will somehow magically come in underbudget and on time. I wouldn't be surprised if three separate programs cost as much as 2x the amount of the F-35 program, if they were followed through to completion.

>Well, what did they do with the F-35 ? For now, nothing.
They sure as hell wanted to. But, luckily for us, the F-35 program was too big to fail, so even in the most dark and depressing times, the fickle entity known as Congress had no other choice. They had to go through with the program. They'd put off replacements for far too long. They reaped what they sowed. However, luckily for us, the F-35 is a great plane.

And believe you me, Lockheed is paying for everything they screw up on the F-35, and have been since the program was restructured. If a plane goes in overbudget, Lockheed foots the cost. If something is wrong and needs to be replaced, Lockheed foots the cost.

See, the problem is that you assume that the F-35 is the root of all evil. It's not. Imagine if there were three different programs all failing as hard as you think the F-35 program did.

File: p.1154.jpg (14KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 600x300px

>>32492565
>You realise using the harrier engine configuration would make it almost impossible for the fighter to go supersonic
it was possible in 1960's
http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_p1154.htm

>>32492588
>links an aircraft that doesn't have the harrier's engine configuration

File: RC-135 Rivet Joint.jpg (193KB, 1836x1050px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1836x1050px

>>32492432
>120 degree fov
Nothing special. Mechanically-steered radars can do that.
>>32492556
>Cheek arrays are less powerful
Not inherently. And there's more real estate on the side of a fuselage than the nose, meaning potentially larger antenna aperture and higher antenna gain and sensitivity (both transmitting and receiving), as well as narrower beamwidth offering greater angular resolution and lower probability of interception.

True side-scanning offers some other specific opportunities not available to forward-facing arrays. SLAR capabilities allow high-resolution, wide-coverage scanning of terrain and ground objects, especially when combined with synthetic aperture techniques. Cheek arrays also offer advantages for passive ELINT scanning; for example, the aircraft can circle an emitter for a prolonged period while locating it and recording transmissions, instead of flying towards and over it. Beam-aspect scanning (ideally paired with LPIR) allows a jet to continue to scan/track a threat while itself presenting minimal doppler shift to the threat, allowing it to blend in with background clutter (the so-called "notch" technique). Current fighters cannot actively track a threat while flying in the notch, but a fighter with a side array could.

File: bs100.jpg (18KB, 300x435px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x435px

>>32492604
yes it does

>>32492566
>so theory wise as far as the 71
Except for, y'know, the whole... melting structural parts issue.
The X-51 was supposed to be NASA's """""long endurance"""" hypersonic SCRAMjet demonstrator, and it flew for a whole six minutes!

>>32492557

In military procurement, there is no such thing as "on schedule and cost effective." Defense manufacturers will always low-ball the costs and timeline when they make a bid on a contract. The current procurement system simply does not reward truthful projections.

>>32492630
>Cheek arrays also offer advantages for passive ELINT
F-35 already has 360 degree ELINT sensors though

File: radar.jpg (338KB, 1606x896px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1606x896px

>>32489270
>Stealth is now a prerequisite to even play the game.
Implying you can guarantee stealth, motherfucking lol.
Would you bet your life on the assumption that your enemy can't see you?

>>32492233
>But unfortunately they decided to make planes fucking slow in favor of 'muh sdtealth' instead of just ensuring everything had mach 3+ cruising speeds like we've had the technology for since the 60s.

>Implying those ultrafast fighters were ever anything but a waste of fuel

Why do people have such a problem with stealth, are they all actually Sprey?

>>32492295
>the basic airframe layout of A and C versions was compromised by the requirements of STOVL version B.
No, fuck you, you have it backwards. The A is the base model, and the B's lift system literally fits into fuel tank space.

>>32492373
>Implying the F-35's isn't comparable to the F-16's
>Especially since it isn't bogged down with drop tanks and targeting pods

>>32492390
>That is completely besides the point. There are inherent tradeoffs to having bigger wings.
Better lift at lower speeds mainly, hence the F-35C's larger wingspan.

>>32493080
>camouflage is useless because it just makes you less visible, not invisible

>>32492409
>It'd be nice if someone else had a comparable offering to compete with it and keep Lockheed on their game.
Boeing tried, couldn't come close to the X-35's "flying colors" pass of the competition, and if you're suggesting we should have burned money putting the X-32 into production you have serious issues.

>>32492435
>Higher wing loading in this case can greatly improve combat radius in high-threat airspace

>Combat radius: 625 nmi[675] (1,158 km) interdiction mission on internal fuel, 760 nmi[676] (1,407 km) for internal air to air configuration

The only fighters in service with longer legs are the F-15s.

>>32493080
Please read the actual dictionary definition of the word 'stealth'. Maybe that way you won't confuse it with invisibility.

Stealth is a guaranteed for a very long time. It doesn't mean aircraft can't be detected, it means that your aircraft is harder to detect, track and target, giving you many advantages over non-stealth aircraft. This advantage can be reduced, but unless there's some massive technological leap, it's not going to disappear. And as long as stealth provides that advantage, it will remain the norm and a requirement.

>>32490023
props are outdated. fuck it was easier for Germany to make he162s than bf109s in March 45

>>32493150
the jumo jets were cheaper to make than the bmw801s in the a/f9 190s too

>>32492565
No to mention that the X-32's engine config was based on the Harrier's, and it was complete garbage.

>>32492391
>I've done some numbers
I legitamitely laughed.

>>32493147
>Stealth is a guaranteed for a very long time.
By who? Your enemies were kind enough to provide feedback about their sensing capabilities? Of course not. Nothing and no one can guarantee how stealth a plane is, saying otherwise is a lie.

>>32493332
>Implying the US doesn't regularly get its hands on on Russian radar tech
>Implying US radar systems aren't years ahead

>>32493332
>nobody can guarantee how stealth an aircraft is.

No matter what, it will always be easier to detect non-VLO aircraft than it is to detect VLO aircraft. There will always be an advantage, even if it is reduced eventually.

>>32492461
It also gives you rapid response times. Look at some of the utilities of the B1 vs the B2/52. If mach 6 jets could be made they certainly would be useful.

>>32493404
Not really. If you're going so fast it'll rip ordinance off your wings or shred the plane when you open a bay it's pretty fucking useless.

File: Fingers-crossed1.jpg (59KB, 300x312px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 300x312px

>>32493340
>I have faith
Good for you but in real life reasonable people don't base their strategy on it.

Reasonable is more like this >>32493395

>>32493404
>retards say that the F-35 can't do CAS
>other retards suggest a Mach 6 bomber fitted with external bays to do CAS instead.

Oh the ironing

>>32493437
>Facts are faith
You are fucking retarded.

Wanting a VTOL variant is what ruined the F-35. It resulted in decisions that really screwed the platform over. The non-VTOL variants are stuck with all the sacrifices they made, and you can't fix that without designing a total different plane.

And you can blame the marines for this. They want to fly planes from their assault ships, and VTOL is sadly the only way unless they grown a brain and just steam catapults / EMALS in the next generation of assault ships

>>32493592
>all the sacrifices they made
what fucking sacrifices
every time with you fucks

>MUH SACRIFICES MUH COMPROMISES
>can NEVER elaborate

>>32493592
>I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm going to keep repeating it like it's true!

The A is the base model, and the B's lift system literally fits into fuel tank space.

>>32492630

cheek arrays like you described don't belong on a fighter. weight and real estate on any jet are at a premium, and that's equipment that is so situational and not tied to its primary missions that it's basically useless. in addition, Link 16 allows for maintenance of weapons-quality tracks via offboard sensors while you're in the notch or even running cold. the F-16's HTS does take DF cuts to shoot HARMS at emitters, but that's a pod and for the specialized Wild Weasel mission.

tl;dr don't need it. you can SAR map just fine on a fighter. velocity helps more when making SAR maps anyway.

>>32489238
Its fake and gay

>>32493420
Obviously you would have internal bays and slow down as you approach the weapons release point.

>>32493498
I said something about CAS? Wow, sure didn't bud. A Mach 6 bomber sure would be useful for PGS though.

>>32493080
The fuck are you talking about. Stealth has never been about being invisible, it's about decreasing visibility to the greatest extent possible. Even if you only get a couple dozen extra nautical miles of non-visibility, it pays off considering the range at which most AA weapons are employed these days.

>>32494970
>Obviously you would have internal bays and slow down as you approach the weapons release point.
Completely making the Mach 6 thing useless to begin with.

>>32495008
>a couple dozen extra nautical miles of non-visibility
That's not what one would call "a prerequisite to even play the game" as said before, these dozen extra miles being still hypothetical... "Better than nothing" does not make an ultimate doctrine, like stealthfags seem to believe.

>>32495569
Show me where anybody with a focus on IADS has decided stealth isn't an important thing to develop as well. I won't hold my breath.

>>32495569

i've fought against Raptors in a LFE. it's pretty damn scary seeing a clean radar screen and hearing GCI call them out.

>>32495866
You have? Anything you can say about the experience other than that?

>>32495569
>these dozen extra miles being still hypothetical
Mate, the "dozen extra miles" is only if stealth gets majorly broken open. As it stands, it's a bit more than that.

>>32495982
The guy is obviously a plane/weapons hipster who thinks himself more knowledgeable than the analysts, engineers, scientists and defense experts behind the designs and employment of said tech and platforms.

>>32495569
A couple dozen nautical miles, fine.

24 nautical miles at mach 1.15 is 2 minutes.
2 minutes if the diference between enemy air assets blocking your path or chasing your tail in a ground strike
2 minutes less for enemy aircraft to scramble in response is the time for an F-15 to climb from scramble to 45k ft

>>32495970

nope. Raptor shit is like double super triple toppest secret

>>32496306
That's what I was afraid of. Oh well!

>>32495301
Why that make it completely useless?

If you have them stationed in mideast and pacific bases you could reach almost anywhere in the world in about an hour, that sounds useful to me.

File: 2YeDA.jpg (19KB, 360x261px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 360x261px

>>32492544

>>32495627
Like 99% of the r&d? Not to mention that nobody works on sensing devices...

>>32496297
2 hypothetical minutes, no one knows, this is an unreliable data and a risky bet.


Happy new year btw!

>>32490232
Because you can do the exact same thing with a B-2 and far better payload.

File: CzGET4WXAAMFHwG.jpg large.jpg (31KB, 597x592px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 597x592px

>>32489277
Yeah.

The F-35's plight can be pinned almost entirely on congressional interference and project mismanagement. Cancelling those F-22 purchases was a particularly big blow.

The media has just made shit worse since having a room-temperature IQ seems to be a prerequisite for writing F-35 articles.

By every objective metric, and according to the pilots, the plane is fine. Great, even.

>>32489238
You need to watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

>>32499099

you need to shut the fuck up about pierre "jazz producer" sprey.

he had some useful shit in the 60's. it's 50 years later. same with boyd - he had some pretty useful insights into air combat/human decision making, and /k/ refuses to give him credit for that. but "tiny fighter with a radar just big enough for a LCOS" was a stupid idea.

Here's the next generation

It's an airship brimming with missile launcher that sends out UAV's to find targets

>>32499686
I'd argue that Sprey was never more than a wannabe hanger-on who has lied about every role he's had in development.

>>32489989
They use F35 coatings in non stealth aircraft too.

File: ss+(2017-01-01+at+04.16.21).png (39KB, 631x364px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 631x364px

The F-35 was a racehorse with a broken leg.

Old McDonald is the man with a Winchester who will put it out of it's misery.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/812061677160202240

>>32493437
Obviously this is bait because no one can be this retarded, but stealth technology is based on physics, which isn't going to change anytime soon.

>>32501199
>Comparable
>Super Hornet
Cheeto Mussolini demonstrates his ignorance once again.

>>32501199
>I am retarded!

He's literally going off of zero real info, and L-M's response was basically "yeah, sure thing dumbass, we'll get right on what we've already been doing for 7 years now."

>>32501246
>Obviously this is bait because no one can be this retarded
Have you seen the comments section on >>32499099?

>>32503092
>>32501361
Hillary lost the election, get over it.

>>32501361
Boeing is lobbying the new administration to buy Advanced Super Hornets as hard as they can.

>80% of the capability for 90% of the price, its a no brainer!

>>32503305
>Hillary lost the election, get over it.
>You're not allowed to criticize Cheeto Mussolini because he managed to carry the electoral vote with a 2.9 million vote shortfall!

You don't get to say that shit after 8 years of "Muslim kenyan Obummer not muh president."

>>32503342
Try maybe 40% capability.

>>32503305
>Trump is beyond critique because Hillary lost
The average Drumpfkin.

>>32503361
>>32503395
>Trump is beyond critique because Hillary lost

You have to actually make a critique instead of sounding like an asshurt SJW whose safe space was invaded.

>>32503496
There is no such thing as an F/A-18 with comparable capability to the F-35. It cannot exist and save money, it would be wrong.

Your God Emperor is capable of being incorrect.

>>32503527
>>32503342
Boeing doesn't have to be able to do it, it is posturing so that Trump and Lockheed can look like they were able to drop the prices.

Your dislike of Trump causes cognitive dissonance which only allows the worst interpretation of events.

>>32503569
Its posturing, but its totally transparent.

>>32503569
So he didn't do anything other than change public opinion.

He's literally done nothing for the program. It was never going to be cancelled, they aren't dropping priceless. His poschuring changes zero and only serves to piss the people that have some understanding of the aircraft off.

>he was just pretending to be retarded
Just made him look like an even bigger retard.

>>32503569
You're right that it's probably posturing to let him win political points when F-35 prices inevitably drop. That tends to be the way he operates - usually when he says some controversial bullshit, it's either
>predicting something that will happen, allowing him to take credit in the future
>drawing attention to stupid thing he said to distract people from something that could be more damaging

Because we are spending trillions on an unnecessary military as mutually assured destruction still exists among superpowers while the eu is providing university and health care

>>32503623
>while the eu is providing university and health care

no such thing, moron

>>32503496
So, a man-child who slid into power without the mandate of the people, who is actively refusing the tasks of the job, will cost the taxpayers millions into his own pockets, and who refuses to disclose his potential foreign conflicts of interest gets a pass because you like him?

>>32503266
I've seen even worse, but sometimes I just want to believe people can't be this retarded.

It reminds me of those serbs insulting me on youtube because I dismissed their claims that Serbia would defeat the US in a full scale war.

>>32503569

>it is posturing so that Trump and Lockheed can look like they were able to drop the prices.

So your entire argument is that Trump is merely pretending to be retarded.

>>32503639

>a man-child who slid into power without the mandate of the people

You realize that the word "Mandate" was specifically created to describe a situation where the voters put 1 party in charge of all branches of government? That's exactly what the Republican Party has right now. They control the entire federal government and the majority of state governments. They can essentially do anything they want at this point.

>>32503903

that doesn't mean that Trump won the popular vote, that they're immune from doing stupid shit, or that we shouldn't call them out when they do stupid shit.

and "HURR SUPER DUPER HORNET WHEN WE'VE LITERALLY GOT MULTIPLE F-35 SQUADRONS" is doing stupid shit. grade A stupid shit.

>>32503903
They have a weak congressional majority with a lot of members Trump pissed off during the campaign.

File: First-In-Air-Gun-Fire.jpg (2MB, 2643x1596px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2643x1596px

>>32503922

I don't disagree with any of that. But I don't want to get into a wider discussion about politics. I'm going to limit the scope of this conversation to what impact the results of the 2016 election could have on the F-35 program. And frankly, Lockheed-Martin and all the other defense contractors are cheering behind closed doors. The Republican Party has said that they plan to increase the cap on military spending, which is a very good thing for the F-35. Trump's twitter shit-posting will have no long-term impact on company stock value compared to the benefits that increased military spending will bring. I'm sure that the management of Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, and Boeing are privately all very pleased with the outcome of the election even if it means that they'll occasionally have to endure twitter rants from Trump. Especially this plan for a 350+ ship navy. That's like a buffet for anybody who has a stake in filling those orders.

>>32504014

The biggest reason why the Republican establishment was so nervous about Trump was simply because they thought that he was going to lose the election and they wanted to distance themselves from Trump in hopes that their careers would survive. Now that Trump won, I expect they'll suddenly be a lot more accepting of Trump.

>>32504014
?
there is a handful of rino's tops
It's not like the dems are a unified bloc either

Part of Trump's candidacy will be ensuring these rino traitors are purged

File: le clever jazz man.png (288KB, 1236x888px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1236x888px

>>32499686
>pierre "jazz producer" sprey.


fucking brilliant

>>32504177
>there is a handful of rino's tops
>Anybody who doesn't want the proven destructive extreme socioeconomic policies isn't a real Republican!

>>32505689
>proven destructive extreme socioeconomic policies
?

Anyone who supported Hillary over Trump is not a real republican
correct

>>32505837

There are plenty of Republicans who don't like Trump but voted for him anyway simply because there was no other choice. The Republican congress will allow Trump to play around in his sandbox for the most part but they'll make sure that his most destructive proposals never see the light of day. If Trump tries to act against the F-35, he won't last very long.

>>32504085
They are actually still incredibly firm on the issues they already held. His idea for term limits was shot down by McConnell.

>>32505837
The election is over. Want to know what isn't republican? Supporting actions that could wreck our economy, cause our national debt to skyrocket, or waste taxpayer dollars on frivolous projects.

>>32506110
So Bush 2 wasn't a republican?

>>32506138
No, but he was foolish. That and the economy was doing well up until '08, he did not actively promote measures that would harm it. The war debt was unavoidable after 9/11, everyone was drunk on the anger of that day.

File: 345531353.jpg (10KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x225px

>>32506408
>the economy was doing well up until '08, he did not actively promote measures that would harm it

>>32506408
>he did not actively promote measures that would harm it. The war debt was unavoidable after 9/11, everyone was drunk on the anger of that day.

>Getting the US into Iraq 2.0 for bullshit reasons and increasing the government spending and debt because of it
>Not actively promoting measures that would harm the economy

Pick one

File: 1483148059625.jpg (170KB, 453x640px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 453x640px

>>32506408

>The war debt was unavoidable after 9/11

>Implying the Iraq War had ANYTHING to do with 9/11

>>32507308
Well, technically it was the "Near Target" strategy to make it easier for jihadists to attack Americans without having to do multi-year long infiltration and attack planning. Which failed in Afghanistan because of how remote it is.