F-35 more or less doomed.

>>32794101
the F-35 isn't going anywhere, they are just putting pressure on lockmart to pull their shit together and stop wasting money.

My country has already 50 of those bastards on order. You better deliver murricans.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

>>32794153
Can't help it, they did just elect someone terminally retarded.

Hopefully there will be some pushback from anyone with two brains cells to rub together.

>>32794129
This.

>>32794184
t. Lockheeb Martinowitz

>>32794288
t. Someone with a functional brain stem that has an opinion in line with active duty pilots

>>32794184
Hillary lost, get over it.

>>32794184
Get fucked foreignfag, enjoy footing your own defense for a change.

>>32794184

This. Throwing away the advantage of having the only operational 5th gen aircraft in significant numbers and the modern networking of battlefield assets would be beyong retarded. That move would make me believe that Trump actually has a Russian connection.

>>32794440
Yes, and?

>>32794456
Swing and a miss

>>32794478
>Yes, and?

Control your butthurt, it is unsightly for an adult to act that way.

>>32794129
They won't get their shit together

>t.aerospace worker

File: M35.jpg (132KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1200x799px

>F-35 more or less doomed

>>32794129
>stop wasting money
>wasting

The thing got approved and will stay in production because it spreads the pork around the states.

What a group of incompetent fucking mouth breathing idiots

the new administration is just fumbling in the dark

>Alternative to the F-35
>Half of the F-35 isn't even made in the USA
>There's an F-35 squadron already on its first overseas deployment

The idea that it could be stopped at this stage, let alone replaced, is beyond retarded.

>Administration thinks Lockheed is wasting money
>Orders Lockheed to lower costs while simultaneously exploring alternative options

>Lockheed shills: REEEEEEEEEEEEE FUCK DRUMPH

Relax you cretins. As long as Lockheed can lower production costs and can prove that their product is superior to the alternatives, you have nothing to fear.

... You -can- prove the F35 is superior to its competition, right?

I mean, you haven't wasted billions of taxpayer dollars making an unnecessary, non-cost effective product... right?

RIGHT?

>>32796090
Except costs have already been dropping for a while.

>>32795858
Apparently they are a lot smarter than you if you can't see what is going on.

>>32796024
The number can be greatly reduced, can be turned into an F-22 sized program and kept home.

This is in line with what most companies, perhaps even Lockheed would want (since it requires one or more immediate start-over lucrative follow-on development programs) so quite likely.

>>32794101
We need to move away from F18s, advanced and otherwise. The F35 program was a flop in many ways, if that funding was put into another differently designed plane with similar technology and stealth capabilities, ignored fucking VTOL bullshit, we'd probably have it on half our carriers by now.

Kind of a lose-lose situation. Keep blowing cash on this program, or pull out when we're already so committed? The F18 airframe in general is out dated, the program flopped, and the plane is still shit.

>>32796112
Right. But as a taxpayer, my only question is can they go lower? As the person footing the bill for this project, I feel that I have a right to an answer.

>>32794456
you know the UK (who meet the NATO spending target comfortably) not only plan on acquiring 100+ of the F35 but have footed a not insignificant part of the development costs

File: 59926523_p0.jpg (540KB, 1539x800px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 1539x800px

>>32794101
Tomcat had more range and speed than the Hornet. Bring back something like that.

Carriers have to stand off farther from the coast now that Chinese shore launch missiles are so effective now.

Boeing is going all out to persuade the USN to buy Advance Super Hornets instead of F-35C's.

>F-35 critics in charge of making us spend more overall and getting less for our dollars

I do hate how experimental military projects intended for mass production get constantly derailed by political establishments.

That said I also hate the ridiculous price jacking of readily available resources that have existed long enough to benefit from the price reduction of mass production, but see no price change.

Like 20,000$ for the LRLAP case propellant.

Its $200 a POUND. And its pretty typical propellant!!

>>32796138
It can't be "kept home", lots of it isn't even made in the USA.

>>32796138
>I have no awareness of why the F-35 is needed, or the side effects of my genius plan

>>32796170
>And its pretty typical propellant!!

Why am I not surprised that after getting BTFO you skulked back to repeat the same lies.

Let's be realistic. The F35 will spend 95% of it's service life doing ONE thing: bombing the shit out of third world hellholes with little to no AA capabilities.

>F35
>Starting price: $98 million per unit
>Capabilities: Bombing the shit out of people, avoiding AAA that the enemy doesn't have, dogfighting with air superiority fighters the enemy doesn't have

>EMB 312 Super Tucano
>Starting price: $10ish million, give or take a million
>Capabilities: Bombing the shit out of people

>>32796161
Tomcat also had reliability so bad they were flying it with inoperable radar for AtG sorties.

>>32796149
Only if you're willing to compromise capabilities or increase the production run. And the F-35 is currently on track to have a unit cost only slightly higher than the newest blocks of F-16s, while offering massively improved capacities (lower RCS, datalinks, IRST, 360º sensor fusion, etc)

File: 1431989603882.gif (3MB, 640x420px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x420px

>mfw trump cancels f-35
>mfw no planes for our >ramp carriers

Pls America, trump and may were holding hands before

>>32794101
The fact that it asks to compare the F/A-18 to the F-35 honestly makes this seem like a formality to try and legitimize the rather asinine claim by the president that he would replace the F-35 with a modified F/A-18. I would not expect anything to come of this, the program is already trying to bring down costs so there isn't much this could actually do.

>>32796149
Honestly, the price of the F-35B isn't too bad for what it is (it should be $85 mil per aircraft for full rate production). For comparison the F-15SE (F-15 with comparable front radar cross section only) was projected at $100 million (up from $30 mil), which again only has comparable rcs from the frontal aspect. I don't know the final production costs for the vtol and carrier version are, but they should come down about from ~$110 mil.

>>32796138
>The number can be greatly reduced
Sure, if you want the cost per unit to skyrocket

>>32796273
Buying weapons without considering that you might have different enemies in the future is beyond idiotic.

>>32796320
Don't say that, that's not funny.

>>32796326
F-15SE didn't have comparible frontal aspect RCS, m8. Thats a joke.

It was significantly lower, but not F-35/F-22 tier.

>>32796343
Future enemies like who? Any country that could go toe to toe with the US in conventional terms already has at least a dozen ICBMs pointed at them.

Somehow I don't see ISIS gathering up cutting edge air superiority fighters.

>>32796273
They shot down f117s years ago. You need stealth. Also, why not wait for the new stealth bomber? Is it not carrier compatible?

In flight school right now (navy), and we had some admiral come talk to us last week about the pipeline and life in the aviation community in general. I've wanted to fly the F35 for 3 years, until he came and spoke to us. Apparently f35 pilots rarely fly. It's all simulators because it costs a shit ton for flight hours

>>32796392
"Comparable" was the term the sales team used.

>>32796407
Why have national standing armies at all if there is a deterrent?

The F-35's price isn't the problem, because the $1 Trillion number floated around is for a life-span of 50 years (Design, prototype, production, etc.).
The problem is this program started nearly 25 years ago and things are still being finalized and fixed. The F-35 is supposed to replace multiple other aircraft and it's taking too long. Numerous nations are awaiting them and changing their minds because of that wait. Air Forces are being left vulnerable because of this time gap and builders won't get paid until they deliver.

>>32796407
God you're a moron

hahaha

F35 fags BTFO once again

>>32796326
>the rather asinine claim by the president that he would replace the F-35 with a modified F/A-18

I love how Trump's critics are so reliant on putting words in his mouth. Some people still believe he said all Mexicans were rapists.

>>32796320
I wasn't aware the UK was buying F-35C's.

F35 welder/assembler here.

The government just ordered 200 more F35s last week.

This is just a ploy to get Lockheed's ass in gear.

The f35A is already 81million now, and dropping

>>32796537
"Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!"

>>32796537
I bet that you're going to say his tweet was some "4D chess" bullshit to cover up his twitter retardation but save it, none of us are buying that dribble.

>>32796464
Not an argument.

Face it. ISIS, Boko Haram, and Al-Shabaab are not about to start fielding Gen 5 Stealth fighters anytime soon. I would be very impressed if they even had a single fully operational Cold-War radar array. Last I checked the entire ISIS air force consisted of a single non-airworthy Soviet fighter.

Any conflict between any nations with the capability to field Gen 4 or higher aircraft would most likely result in nuclear warfare anyway. A whole lot of good your hundred million dollar aircraft will do when it gets vaporized in it's hanger.

Using F35s to bomb ragheads is like using a wheat harvester to mow your front lawn, and for the forseeable future, bombing ragheads is all the F35 will do for its entire service life.

>>32796602
See
>>32796564


You aren't buying that dribble. That's why he is a multibillion dollar businessman who is also the president of the United States, and you are nobody.

You can disagree with his opinions all you want but Trump didn't get to where he is by being stupid.

>>32796621
You buy weapons that are the best because you don't know what the enemy of tomorrow might be.

Also Vietnam, Falklands, Iraq. You can't think that every future conflict will look exactly like the one thats going on right now.

>>32796641
>Trump's "pressuring" LM is responsible for an LRIP run that was already planned for years

go fuck yourself with a rake.

I bet you praise trump for letting the sun rise every morning too, dontcha?

>>32796584
Thank you for evidencing what I wrote.

>>32796602
I feel bad for you if your reading comprehension is so poor you can't understand Trump is asking Boeing what a comperable Hornet would cost.

>>32796656
I can hear the REEEEEE in the distance.

>>32794440
>America enters the 2020s without significant numbers of 5th gen fighters
Lmao, Hillary lost, get over it
>The world deserts American arms exports because of how they got gipped by the F-35 cancellation
Lmao, Hillary lost, get over it
>America and Japan get their shit pushed in the south China sea in the 2020s because no 5th gen fighters
Lmao, Hillary lost, get over it

>>32794476
>That move would make me believe that Trump actually has a Russian connection.
You don't fucking say

>>32796658
>you can't understand Trump is asking Boeing what a comperable Hornet would cost.

Hm. Thats a thinker, anon.

Almost like the logical inferrence is that it would be replacing a number of the F-35 order, dumb shit.

>>32796658
>evidencing

Not even a real word. Also that was a claim that he would look acquire Super Hornets instead of F-35's, I said it was asinine, and then you said that's not what he said, and here we are.

>>32796680
When in doubt, strawman.

>>32796658
The notion that Trump is playing silly buggers to get Lockheed to knock down the price is dumb because it's a hollow threat, because there is no other game in town in terms of 5th gen fighters. Lockheed know Mattis isn't dumb enough to cancel it.

>>32796653
I know exactly what kind of enemies we will be facing in the future. There are only two kinds.

>A third world state/organization that relies on guerilla warfare and terrorist attacks to fight, sometimes backed by an outdated regular military/paramilitary force

>A second world state that uses nuclear weapons and a considerable conventional force to do war

The F35 is overkill for the former, and a moot point for the latter.

>>32796690
>>32796701
>I'm buying a lot of oranges, but man are they expensive. Just to check, how much are apples going for?

"OMG YOU ARE BUYING APPLES!?!" - Trump critics

>>32796732
>It's a hollow threat

Top fucking kek. We don't need a Gen 5 fighter, and we certainly can't afford one right now if this is how Lockheed wants to play ball.

File: VFA-102 FA-18.jpg (138KB, 780x511px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 780x511px

I can't believe that Lockheebs think that the Chinese '5th Gen' fighters aren't just last-gen MiG's with an F-35 casemod they made out of balsa wood and peasant tears.

>>32796750
You speak quite authoritatively for someone with no experience.

>>32796750
>A second world state that uses nuclear weapons and a considerable conventional force to do war

Why is the F-35 a "moot point" for this, exactly?

You think that we'll go straight to the nuclear option because China is invaiding Taiwan? We won't.

>>32796766
Read the tweet again, friend. I know what you're implying, and it just makes you seem like you have poor english.

>>32796770
What do you think the F-35 costs, exactly?
>We don't need a Gen 5 fighter
lol

>>32796770
F-35 cost for the next block is 81$ million, that's CHEAPER than its 4th gen equivalents.

It's pants on head retarded, he's saying "Cut the costs or I'll buy a worse product for more money"

>>32796732
Trump knows that most people are stupid and think F-35's cost a gorillion dollars each, he is positioning himself to look good whenthe price keeps dropping.

>>32796766
Thats not even close to what the quote was.

>>32796770
You don't understand development and procurement cycles.

>>32796789
It's either that or he binged watched a bunch of Pierre Spey videos and genuinely IS that retarded

>>32796789
Literally nobody in the media has shown it this way.

File: 1485049791725.jpg (243KB, 960x1108px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 960x1108px

>>32796750
>I know exactly what kind of enemies we will be facing in the future

You are delusional.

>>32796779
>I know what you're implying, and it just makes you seem like you have poor english.

t. anon with poor reading comprehension

>>32796807
It's for his base, not the media.

>>32794476
The airframe is shit. The avionics can be installed in another airframe.
DC and the Pentagon learned nothing from the F111. >>32796423

>>32796766
>Trump is gonna do thing!!!!

>But what about consequences of thing?????

>LOL Strawman argument, butthurt liberal Hillary lost, get over it

>>32796775
Lucky for us, it's not up to my authority. Its up to the deputy secretary of defense, and I have a feeling he has more experience than everyone in this threat combined.

>>32796779
Or maybe, just maybe, we won't come to blows in the South China Sea because I as an American taxpayer don't give a single Gen 5 flying fuck what happens to Taiwan.

>>32796807
>no one in the media has grossly exaggerated the cost of the F-35

>>32796680
>south China Sea comment
F22s would be our air superiority there. The f35 wouldn't even be used in that situation, and by mid 2020s we'll have a new carrier capable bomber on the way.

File: ArmedBeer.jpg (410KB, 2016x1512px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 2016x1512px

>>32796807
>The Media

>>32796564
It's still crap. It isn't fast, it isn't maneuverable, loadout is subtier, range is suck.
Oh, but it has cool stuff!
Stealth can be beaten. Invest in Wild Weasel drones.

>>32796834
Mattis is pro-F-35.

>Or maybe, just maybe, we won't come to blows in the South China Sea because I as an American taxpayer don't give a single Gen 5 flying fuck what happens to Taiwan.

Cute, anon.

Delusional and stupid, but cute.

>>32796834
>Lucky for us, it's not up to my authority. Its up to the deputy secretary of defense, and I have a feeling he has more experience than everyone in this threat combined.

You cannot state "facts" about the future. Yes, you can point to extremely likely outcomes, but you or the DefSec cannot state the future.

>>32796817
>The airframe is shit
How?
>inb4 muh STOVL compromises
please list these compromises and give proofs.

>>32796856
>we'll have a new carrier capable bomber on the way.

Thats what the F-35 is...

>>32796856
F-22s are carrier-capable now?

>>32796861
gb2/pol/

File: 7cb698ea5ad2a943af0ba48360c980b0.jpg (3MB, 5000x2333px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5000x2333px

>>32796817
>The airframe is shit. The avionics can be installed in another airframe.

Oh sure, let's just INSTALL THEM IN ANOTHER AIRCRAFT. I'm sure that'll be easy and economical.

And you dumb motherfucker, from day one it's been Software that's been what's holding the program up, you'd have the same trouble regardless of what airframe you had.

>>32796861
>range is suck
Better than the F-18

Also while stealth can be beaten advancements in radar mean less stealthy aircraft will fare far worse.

is there anything better than being a government contractor before trump? you can charge ridiculous amount for shitty work and people at the top just skim the profit. its like a legalize government run mafia union racket.

>>32796825
>Trump is going to do thing!

No, he isn't.

>REEEE STOP DEFENDING THAT DRUMPSTERFIRE!!!!

>>32796856
Day one of any SCS war is gonna involve SRBMs shattering every airfield and sufficiently straight section of highway in the region.

If America doesn't have 5th gen Carrier aircraft, it loses that war.

> by mid 2020s we'll have a new carrier capable bomber on the way.
Ayyyy lmao. Look at dev times of any fighter post 1980s and tell me that's a realistic proposition. It's 2017 right now for Christ sakes.

>>32796874
Talking about the stealth bomber.
>>32796877
Doesn't need to be, just needs to be able to launch and defend Japanese airspace from Chinese threats.

>>32796861
>It's still crap. It isn't fast, it isn't maneuverable, loadout is subtier, range is suck.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong and hopelessly fucking wrong

>>32796909
>Price up a comparible F/A-18 Hornet for me
>I have no intention of using this information, or procuring F/A-18s, its just curiosity

listen to yourself

>>32796923
>Fighting defensively

Dealingwithloss.pdf

>>32796862
>Yes taxpayer, keep paying to defend every piss nothing irrelevant shithole on Earth

You can take your imperialism and shove it. I don't care what happens to Taiwan. I don't care what happens to Ukraine. I certainly don't care enough to spend over a trillion dollars to build a series of fighters specifically to defend other people. If those countries are so fucking scared of bullies, they can spend their own fucking money.

>>32796923
The bomber won't be carrier capable.

>>32796923
Okay, and what about the South China Sea?

>>32796869
Seriously? The STOVL adds SO MUCH weight!
Design a ramp carrier plane.
Design a carrier plane for real carriers.
Design a land plane for air forces.
F-111 did not fulfill it's intended role for anyone. Lesson not learned.

>>32796932
>Fighting offensively
>Against a nuclear power

What could go wrong?

>>32796938
I actively encourage you to lobby for the Navy to stop building Ford class carriers and for the US to hole up.

It'll go GREAT for you

File: CnCGensDozer.jpg (45KB, 500x263px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x263px

>>32796938
If America withdraws into Isolationism, someone's gonna fill the power vacuum.

No Prizes for guessing who. It'll be their world order you have deal with.

>>32796938
>I don't care what happens to Taiwan. I don't care what happens to Ukraine. I certainly don't care enough to spend over a trillion dollars to build a series of fighters specifically to defend other people.

Good thing you're opinion is irrelevant than.

>>32796938
You realize as hegemon the US actually benefits from global stability? Just because you personally don't think you are effected doesn't mean anything, it effects the economy in ways you clearly wouldn't understand.

>>32796959
>you're

HURRRRRRRRRRRRR

*your

File: 1484338733478.png (660KB, 1106x1012px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 1106x1012px

>>32794101

I absolutely refuse to believe that the Department of Defense would ever be so stupid as to think that they're just going to magically throw together some new F-18 variant and it will somehow be cheaper and more capable than the F-35. This is just political posturing to frame Trump as a "reformer." I believe in Mattis. He will make sure that the F-35 is safe no matter what Trump says.

>>32796966
You know what else hurts our economy?

Spending a trillion and a half dollars to develop an aircraft that will almost certainly never be used to its full capabilities.

>>32796886
No. PERFORMANCE has been the issue. Software is simpler to fix, but a built in anchor on a combat aircraft is affecting performance.
Are you a LM stockholder, Pentagon stakeholder, or a Russian hoping we go bankrupt building a shit combat plane?

>>32796995
>Software is simpler to fix
Maybe do some light reading on a subject before mouthing off, eh?

>>32796993
1.5 trillion over the next 50 years.

It'll cost you a lot less.

>>32796993
That actually doesn't hurt the economy considering that the money goes to American companies and creates nearly 150,000 jobs across the country.

>>32796895
Yes, and the F18 was shit, based off the LOSER to the F16 because Northrop cried to Daddy.
The Navy fuckocer is a related but other story.

>>32796928
Sez who? The scumbags profiting from it?

File: file.jpg (67KB, 603x710px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 603x710px

>>32797029
Says everyone whose opinions are worth a damn.

File: 1415552335001.png (20KB, 642x715px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 642x715px

look at the gigantic WHEREAS statement at the very beginning of the scare letter

>THE F35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM IS A CRITICAL ACQUISITION PROGRAM THAT WARRANTS A DETAILED ASSESSMENT TO REDUCE ASSOCIATED PROGRAM COSTS. TO THAT END

It's fucking nothing. Just pressure on lockheed. And to all the redditors here whining about Trump's erratic behavior possibly leading to following through with a cancellation, I would remind you that part of what you niggers always complain about is his massive ego. He's precisely the kind of president who wouldn't want the cancellation of a big prestige project like this to damage his warrior king legacy.

>>32796995
>Software is simpler to fix,
This kind of retardation is why the project is so behind in the first place

>>32797009
Software can be upgraded. Airframes can't. Do you believe differently?

>>32797062
"Fix" and "upgrade" are two different words, anon.

Did you not notice?

Airframes also get upgrades all the time. T1/T2/T3 Eurofighters are completely different. F-15C/E are completely different.

>>32797047
>He's precisely the kind of president who wouldn't want the cancellation of a big prestige project like this to damage his warrior king legacy.
The F-35 is publicly unpopular, the Pierre Spey way of thinking has crept into the public consciousness cancelling it would probably be popular (See: Canada).

And that's what fucking worries me. He's both impressionable and knows how to pander to a crowd.

If Pierre Spey makes it onto a cable news interview that Trump sees, it'll all be over, we'll be flying Mig-21s with only two IR missiles each and driving around in M60s.

>>32797045
Uh huh.
Ever been in the military? Can these pilots recognize what the desired answer is and the wfdect it will have on their future hoped-for employment?
Japan in the 30s asked its pilots what they wanted; they wanted a lightweight lightly armed dogfighter. They were weong.

>>32797107
>Mattis doesn't count
>Pilots don't count

Who does, anon?

Who would please your autism if they said it was good?

>>32797118
He's too deep in the cult of personality. He won't believe anything that doesn't become from Trump

>>32797062
>Airframes can't

Not drastically, but SLEP mods are common to reinforce airframes for longer service life. Send 'em to Depot, comes back all better.

>>32797083
Upgrades are fixes or improvements, shill.
F15 C to E is a modification trading one area of performance for another. This is also an indication that the basic airframe was good.
I know less about the other you listed, but it's probably the same.

>>32797094
>The F-35 is publicly unpopular, the Pierre Spey way of thinking has crept into the public consciousness

I'm not saying that's a totally unfounded concern, but I think we happen to be aware of these things because we're the kind of people who spend a lot of time on /k/. I think the average middle american voter that Trump wants to pander to is more like

>man that intercontinental comanche stealth copter, you remember that fuckin thing??? we coulda killed so many terrorists with that shit, fuckin liberal pussies cancelled it

and generally likes the idea of flashy technological military advances. I think they keep their budgetary concerns, chiefly cutting money to freeloading niggers, in another compartment of their mind.

>>32797150
>Upgrades are fixes

Mmmno. Getting software to a working state is not an "upgrade".

>I know less about the other you listed, but it's probably the same.

I know you don't.

back to /pol/, fuckboy.

>>32797118
Mattis is a politician. He knows the faults of the F35, believe it.
Your unnamed cherry picked 37 pilots on your unsourced graph? Worship it if you like, shill.
>>32797138
I voted for Trump because Hillary was worse. But what does this have to do with anything discussed here?

File: 1476132432442.jpg (3MB, 1960x2744px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1960x2744px

>>32796861
>It isn't fast
It has far better energy recovery than a f16. It's faster than a f16 fully loaded up.
It doesn't realy on reheat for acceleration

> it isn't maneuverable
Wrong, it has better capabilities than the f16 when fully loaded.(pic related)
(Not like it matters. Last dogfight was in Vietnam, and 9/10 kills were with missiles)

>loadout is subtier
Better than the f16 and harrior it replaces.

>range is suck.
Better rate GE than the f16,f18, and harrior without using external tanks.
>Oh, but it has cool stuff!
Yes, being able to see target key points from hundreds of miles away is god tier.

>Stealth can be beaten.
Everything can be beaten eventually
Not an argument

>>32795858
Still better than Hillary would have been.

True some of his positions aren't even concrete yet. Perhaps a good thing, though.

>>32797185
Didn't answer my question; whose opinion would you believe?

Because at this point its just tinfoiling.

>>32797185
> He knows the faults of the F35, believe it.

Sorry, do find me a single person in this entire thread that said the F-35 was flawless.

Doesn't mean it isn't objectively the best option out there.

>>32797156
You're wrong.

Public opinion on the F-35 is more
>It's expensive
>It's bad
>I heard it's worse than our OLD fighters
>16 new HOT FACTS about Russia's new LETHAL Su-35 Jet Fighter F-35 Killer????? The USAF Hates it!

Basically every /k/ F-35 shitposting thread

>>32797143
That is to incrementally improve a good airframe (or carrier). It won't make up for basic flaws because someone wants to please users with different needs with one aircraft.
How many times has the program relaxed requirements that couldn't. be met?

>>32797190
>True some of his positions aren't even concrete yet

That's a polite way of saying "The Executive branch of the world's only superpower is running around like a headless chicken spurting out barely coherent executive orders from its neck-hole"

>>32797159
You threw it out there, define what tou mean by "upgrade". My point was and is that you can't fix a poor airframe after it has been built.

>>32797262
>My point was and is that you can't fix a poor airframe after it has been built.

and you've never been specific on why you think its "poor".

Eurofighter upgrades include avionics, manouverability, range, munitions..

Going to need to know which F-35 meme you're referring to

>>32797251
the orange president isn't doing anything if the sort.
He de-funded abortions that the US pays for in other countries.
And stopped the government from hiring a bunch of useless people.

Sounds like reasonable things to me.

>>32797188
A new plane had damn well better be an improvement on the F-16 from 40 years ago.
The USA has no better options right now because we are pouring everything into this one peg trying to make it fit different shaped holes. And that was a bad decision and is the root of the unsolvable problems.
Well, they will be solved when the performance requirements are relaxed.

>>32797150
>F15 C to E is a modification trading one area of performance for another.
Except for the part where the F-15E is an entirely new airframe based on the F-15C.

>>32796161
that makes me hard.

>>32797203
Mine, blackshoe.

>>32797301
>A new plane had damn well better be an improvement on the F-16 from 40 years ago.

F-16 is more manouverable than most of the US inventory, sans F-22. Its a light fighter, doesn't matter how old it is.

A biplane will out-turn everything, don't call the F-22 shit tier because it can't beat an 80 year old aircraft.

>>32797281
>He de-funded abortions that the US pays for in other countries.
No, he defunded organizations that happen to perform abortions. Technically not the same thing.

>And stopped the government from hiring a bunch of useless people.
How the hell would you know?

>>32797215
It is the ONLY option, now.

>>32794295
>my opinion has merit, in my opinion

>>32797331
Correct.

Other companies had their chance and were markedly worse.

>>32797281
>And stopped the government from hiring a bunch of useless people.
>useless people
Yeah who needs doctors? Those fucking veterans are overrated anyway, the VA will be fine.

>>32797312
It isn't an upgrade of an existing F15C, it is an upgraded newer version.
Again- the serious F35 flaws based on the wasted weight cannot be modified away on the existing aircraft.
But you know this. You are just a F35 fanboi.

>>32797325
What the fuck conversation are you having?

>>32796978
Friendly reminder: Trump is installing spies to keep tabs on his Secretaries to make sure they do as they're told: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trumps-shadow-cabinet-234088

You can have all the faith in Mattis you want, but at the end of the day he's not President.

>>32797339
Again, see: F-111

>>32797377
Oh so your answer to
>>32797272

Is weight? Thats what you're going with?

Because thats not an inherently negative characteristic.

>>32797388
>Its newer so it better beat a plane from 40 years ago!
is a stupid argument to have because its a plane not designed to be a turn fighter beating a turn fighter.

Get it?

If it means f/a 18 advanced with integrated weapon pods, then SIGN ME UP

>>32797363
The military was exempt dumb ass.
And that's also not a fucking argument.

>>32797301
Dude, 5x f15s went up against the F35 and all got their asses handed to them in a mock battle.

A f16 is outclassed by an f35 by a huge margin

>>32797327
>How the hell would you know?
Idk, maybe because I work directly with government employees and defense contractors.

20% of those assholes are useless and are getting paid crazy amounts of money

>>32796443
This.
Put pressure on em, and drop the price for everyone. Now our "allies" buy (more). Marines are happy, army is happy, airforce is happy, Canada, Japan, bongs, etc are happy.

>>32797511
Yes, anon.

"Pressure", in the form of replacing an aircraft with another one.. that get this..

can't perform its role

File: F-111A_prototype_with_dummy_missiles_in_flight_in_1965.jpg (189KB, 888x500px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 888x500px

>>32796950
>The STOVL adds SO MUCH weight
No. The STOVL requirements were only even considered after Lockheed had thoroughly demonstrated their lift-fan system to not compromise performance. The F-35B has moderately reduced performance compared to the -A and -C (lower loading ratings and shorter range), but the only "added weight" that you get as a consequence on the non-STOVL variants is a nice big fuel tank that would have been there regardless of there being a STOVL variant in the first place.

Literally the entire reason the JSF came into existence was that it was sufficiently proven that the technology existed for a common airframe to satisfy the requirements of the three services. Separate programs would have only seen higher costs and likely even more overruns - the whole reason the JSF got off schedule in the first place was that they made the decision to mature a bunch of technologies with the F-35 (again to save money in the long term) without adjusting the budget and schedule accordingly. Had this been three separate programs, the problem would be even worse. Each service would be trying to mature similar technologies separately and likely to different standards, creating three programs that would be over budget, behind schedule, and more expensive than the F-35 ever was.

>muh F-111
Confirmed for not knowing shit. The F-111 was the consequence of McNamara trying to combine quite possible the most diverging requirements possible - a low-level long-range interdictor and a fleet-defense interceptor. Alone, each of those requirements would have been a difficult prospect, and together, you ended up with requirements so conflicting that both Boeing and General Dynamics effectively had to select the easier requirements (Air Force) and create the naval variant as an afterthought.

The F-35, on the other hand, filled a common requirement for all three services - a "light" multirole fighter to serve as the backbone of the fleet.

>>32797449
>The military was exempt dumb ass.
>And that's also not a fucking argument.
The VA isn't eh military you fucking mong

>>32797524
Jesus, thank you

>>32797511
More like
>Sees that the price is going to drop as production ramps up
>make a big deal about lowering the price, knowing that Trumpcucks and most plebs don't actually know shit about military procurement
>wait for prices to drop as planned
>hold it up as a great "victory"

Most of what he does is pretty transparent, especially the twitter shitposting. I wouldn't be surprised if it's also to stir up shit to distract people from some worse thing he's doing, as that seems to be the trend with his more controversial twitter shitposts.

File: what bullshit.jpg (256KB, 1000x980px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1000x980px

>>32797185
>everyone who has any credible position to know what the fuck is going on with the F-35 thinks it is good
>those proofs don't count because it does not fit my narrative you fucking shill!

>>32797690
>narrative
Excuse you, the correct term is "alternative facts"

>>32796273

>312

It's 314, nigger. 312 it's the T-27.

>>32797682
I love how his critics have such strong cognitive dissonance that what you just wrote is something they refuse to acknowledge despite how obvious it is.

>>32796941
Why the fuck are we investing in it then? What does it do the F35 or B2 won't?

Why the fuck did we have to take F117s out of service? We could still be using them to fill similar rolls.

>>32797709
No.

I'd rather "waste" my tax money on 6 billion F-35s than 6 billion foreigners. It's all a matter of perspective.

>>32797745
F-117's are pretty shitty, their only redeeming quality was the early stealth they had lacked any real counters.

>>32796950
>STOVL ADDS WEIGHT
You understand that STOVL aircraft need to be light? Or that the aircraft itself has the most powerful engine ever mounted on a fighter aircraft?

Saying something is bad because it fills multiple roles isn't criticism of its good at all of those roles

>Rafale is shit because it has a conventional and carrier version

>F-16 and F-18 were both planned originally with carrier operability in mind

>F-16 is bad because it can fight AtA AND AtG (Jesus fuck those madmen at the pentagon!!)

Sprey pls go

>>32797736
>critics
>cognitive dissonance
yeah he sure did drain that swamp didn't he?

There's plenty of critics that recognize the act for what it is - a con man playing the public even more than a normal politician does for personal benefit.

Welp, if the mad dog signs it, I don't think /k/ is going to disapprove.

inb4 but Trump forces his hand

>>32797390
Got any more fake news outlets?

>>32797785
Trump did drain the swamp though, he drained it fucking dry.

>>32794101
>>32794129
>>32796732
>>32796326
http://www.businessinsider.com/secretary-of-defense-mattis-review-of-f-35-lockheed-stock-tanks-2017-1

Mattis already made it official that the two will face off.

>>32797262
>can't fix an airframe after it has been made
>he doesn't know about all the issues that early F-16s had

>>32797785
>yeah he sure did drain that swamp didn't he?

Doing good so far, Quid Pro Quo Kennedy is the most recent purge.

>>32797810

Ordering a review is not a "face-off." A face-off would be if they actually had the two aircraft fight each other.

>>32797810
Only the F35C, which is the lowest priority of the 3 variants.

>>32797745
I'm assuming you're talking about the LRS-B.

Its a cheaper, smaller more tactical B-2 that doesn't cost a nation's GDP to run or procure. It'll fill some of the roles the F-35 does but with more payload, high-endurance ISR and EW.

>Why the fuck did we have to take F117s out of service? We could still be using them to fill similar rolls.

Now you're just being a fucking dumbass.

F117s are so old they predate the software and computing power necessary to create designs that are stealthy in 3D.

>>32797883

Why would the carrier-variant be given lowest priority?

>>32797745

>Why the fuck did we have to take F117s out of service?

Because the F-22 made the F-117 completely redundant. Every single mission that the F-117 is capable of performing can be done better by the F-22.

>>32797920
Because the only operator capable of using them is the USN, because nobody else has CATOBAR carriers. And they'll only be replacing legacy Hornets, not the entire Hornet fleet. As a result, C's only make up a fraction of total F35s, with only a little over 100 on order.

>>32797920
Lowest need compared to the other services. The F-16, F/A-18 and Harrier both urgently need replacement, but the Navy procured Super Hornets fairly recently, so their fighter fleet is holding up enough that they can afford to wait the extra couple years for their first F-35s.

>>32796653
>because you don't know what the enemy of tomorrow might be
What kind of horseshit is that. Especially in this day and age of rampant spying virtually all capabilities of militaries are not just known but quantified.

You already know what Russian and Chinese planes can do and how many they have. Moreover you know they couldn't fight a sustainable war on equal footing for any serious amount of time and that they're struggling to maintain said military without being economically crippled as is. You already know what potential wars could erupt in the next 15-30 years and each of these scenarios has been and is currently being analyzed to death and then some.

There are no surprises. You definitely know what the enemy of tomorrow will be. Especially considering you'll probably be the one secretly funding their efforts.

>>32798076
Yes, because you can totally predict the next 30 years of geopolitics with 100% accuracy.

Also, even if we know how planes Russia and China have, we still need something to, you know, actually shoot them down.

>>32796808
Go on then, tell us about all these surprise enemies that have appeared out of nowhere with magical capabilities that noone knew about.

The only unpredictable thing about war is politics.

>>32794184
For far too long America has lived in the footsteps of Europe. We've walked this path to greatness but now it is time to forge our own destiny independent of the west.
"Ameriga isn't civilization, it's just europe 1.1"

I for one, am ready for a thousand year Trumpennriech

>>32796148
The Bug and Super bug have an outstanding payload for a fighter that size.

I don't want the F-35 to go away. But I don't want it to fill every other role either. We still need a dedicated CAS, a dedicated Strike aircraft, and a ASF/Interceptor

>>32798128

ah yes, reductio ad absurdum very good

Take note my friend, that isn't what was said. Stating and believing with total certainty what the future is and what it contains is delusional. You can point out the likely outcomes, but you cannot say 100%.

Strategic shocks can happen and some aren't foreseen, but that's why they are strategic shocks.

>>32798119
You can definitely predict whether superpowers are willing to engage in wars that are guaranteed to cripple them and might get them nuked. Especially when one still towers above the rest despite their troubles. Doubly so when they have already spend half a century avoiding open hostilities specifically because of the cost and risk involved with escalation. And that's not even touching upon the fact modern politicians are too spineless to commit career suicide over it.

More importantly, you already know you can beat them and do so for decades to come with a casual comparison of their respective militaries and economies.

>we still need something to, you know, actually shoot them down.
That's what F-22s are for. Which you've had for a while now. Which F-35s are markedly inferior to.

If they can't beat F-22s then F-35s are redundant. If they can beat F-22s then F-35s are still redundant.

>>32796273
We should be buying Tucano airframes to turn them into Drones, keep a few normal for special mission COIN.
We still need a dedicated subsonic/fast moving CAS bird. Hopefully with better relations with Russia we can codevelop a replacement to SU-25 AND A-10 - perhaps something low supersonic with an impresive payload with the capability to fly low and slow really well. And VTOL perhaps.

>>32798223

Yes, you can PREDICT, but you cannot state that as a total fact. You are arguing that, like the other anon said, with 100% accuracy.

>>32797511
The army is never happy. They'll snatch up all the A-10's from the air force and force congress at gun point to allow them to operate subsonics.

And then they'll flip off Mattis because he wasn't tabbed

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

122KB, 852x683px

>>32798223
The F-35's sensors, sensor fusion and networking make it a better BVR fighter than the F-22.

>>32798248
The Army doesn't want the A-10.

>>32797883
>>32797946
>>32797952
They already set down a shitload of F35-Bs in Japan.
http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-south-china-sea-japan-counter-stealth-2017-1

However, what you few just said would contradict what >>32796680 >>32796915 said about SCS needing CARRIER F35s, not Japan based ones. Otherwise >>32796923 would be accurate.

>>32798196
>We still need a dedicated CAS

Most CAS is done by strategic bombers, multirole fighters and drones.

>a dedicated Strike aircraft

Like the F-15E?

>and a ASF/Interceptor

Like the F-22?

>>32798196
The Super Bug isn't going away.

>>32798269
The actual experts think the A-10 is dumb and it should be got rid of.

People who actually want the A-10:
>Infantry who know jack about shit
>Congressmen who are former infantry

>>32798222
>You can point out the likely outcomes, but you cannot say 100%.

That's the point numbnuts. The F-35 provides little to no benefit in any of the likely (or unlikely) outcomes, but we should procure them in large numbers anyways because of "strategic shocks" that you are completely unable to specify because somehow that would have people prepared.

If the F-35 was the top of the line cutting edge tech that pushed the boundaries of what is possible you'd have a point. But it's not. It's the watered down affordable mass export version that is plagued with teething issues that serves no current needs and the benefits it provides have already been superseded.

It's a waste of resources when you don't need it and by the time you do need it it'll be obsolete. The only thing it's good for is to fight a war on equal footing in the next 5-10 years which you know won't happen and which you already have better weapons to deal with anyways.

>>32798242
So let's prepare our militaries for aliens and zombie apocalypses then, because you never know.

>>32798128
>China builds export stealth fighters
>sells them to every shithole that we fuck with

The J-20 is a threat to our 4th gen fighters.

>>32798339

McCain was never infantry.

>>32798445
I'll add 3:
>OId people whose heads are stuck in the past

>>32798366

>That's the point numbnuts. The F-35 provides little to no benefit in any of the likely (or unlikely) outcomes

I'm not auguring the F-35 issue here, but whatever..

But you are stated something very different from what you've said previously, you originally stated (or defended the comment) that you can know the future with a 100% certainty. You've now correctly changed to match what is probable/improbable, not impossible/will. Which was my only original point.

>If the F-35 was the top of the line cutting edge tech that pushed the boundaries of what is possible you'd have a point. But it's not. It's the watered down affordable mass export version that is plagued with teething issues that serves no current needs and the benefits it provides have already been superseded.

That's wrong.

Take a study of this fantastic resource:

https://comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com/

>It's a waste of resources when you don't need it and by the time you do need it it'll be obsolete. The only thing it's good for is to fight a war on equal footing in the next 5-10 years which you know won't happen and which you already have better weapons to deal with anyways.

And that's your opinion.

>>32798390

Being asinine isn't an argument. Unless you want to "win" which by all means, feel free to childishly claim.

>>32798406
>implying the shitholes that you fuck with have the means to acquire and operate planes expensive enough to beat upgraded 4th gens.
If Chinkstealth is affordable enough for them then it's not a threat.

File: _87521373_030775018-1.jpg (35KB, 624x415px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 624x415px

>>32798390
Yeah, near-future limited war with China in the south China sea, Zombie apocalypse, totally a fair fucking comparison

>>32798502

I know you're trying to make yourself ignorant as possible for the sake of replies, but don't over do yourself.

China has plenty of money to throw at things like this.

File: a0c16c245b01097fe17ab7193e9ed5bd.jpg (51KB, 500x368px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x368px

>>32798502
Great idea buddy, let's maintain western dominance over these countries by being complacent and not upgrading our hardware to keep ahead of them

>>32798499
I never stated that the future can be predicted 100%, just that all possible scenarios have already been accounted for many times over by people whose careers are based on doing exactly that. There are virtually no unknowns or surprises, just outcomes that are more and less likely.

>Take a study of this fantastic resource:
Ok, I'll walk back that it has already been entirely superseded. That was wrong. I still however don't see the value of the F-35 outside of being a stepping stone in the integration of maturing technologies.

>>32798535
China does. Not the shitholes you fuck with.

>>32798541
You were already way ahead of them, and the F-35 does not represent some great leap. The technology developed on behalf of it perhaps, but procuring F-35s in massive numbers means fuck all.

Besides, your dominance (and their lack of it) does not come from your military but from your economical prowess, which you have been ceding by burning money on bloated military projects that provide no real world value.

>>32798629
I'm not the same guy, but integration is everything - consider the ease and effectiveness of using a smartphone in comparison to having to carry and operate a separate phone, pager, electronic book, email PDA, MP3 player, etc.

>>32798514
>Yeah, near-future limited war with China in the south China sea
And F-35s will make the difference there?

File: 1485398572546.jpg (270KB, 750x728px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 750x728px

>>32798726

Do you think fighter jets just aren't used or something?

>>32796161
Agreed

>>32798714
> F-35 does not represent some great leap. The technology developed on behalf of it perhaps,
So the F-35's technology represents a great leap but the F-35 doesn't? That's fucking retarded.

>>32794101
I can see Mattis making jerkoff motions as soon as he closed the door when Trump told him to do that.

He knows it's complete fucking bullshit, but Orange Baby wants it.

>>32798726
Why wouldn't they make a difference?

>>32798714
Procuring F-35s in large numbers is important because China, Russia and India seem to have plans to build as many as a thousand 5th gens between them.

When you plan to fight a battle, you plan to win overwhelmingly; that's hard to do with comparable numbers, particularly if you're taking the fight to the enemy on the other side of the world.

>>32794129
On a program already on an aggressive cost reduction plan?

>>32796273
EXCELLENT POINT.
The F-35 isn't useful for COIN, we're currently doing COIN, so let's scrap it in favour of more COIN.

But why stop there?

Who needs Ballistic missile defence for COIN?
We don't need a nuclear deterrent for COIN.
We don't need submarines for COIN.

Let's re-structure the US military so that it's a better fit for the task at ahnd.

Scrap everything, buy 300 Super Tucanos, and then have 500'000 infantry with small arms only in Light armoured vehicles for patrolling the dusty city streets.

>>32798756
And you think a handful of F35Cs on carriers will make the world of difference? We could slap them so hard with missiles and B2s that by the time the war actually starts it'll be over.

>>32796326
F-35Bs will be closer to $100m, but we're only getting 360. It's the A that will be ~$84m.

And F-15Ks were $117m, how the fuck would a radical redesign cost that much less than an updated E?

>>32798719
Yeah, but considering that integrating to the degree that the F-35 is attempting has not been done and the plane has more than its fair share of issues why would you settle for it? Why would you rush to be an early adopter of something you don't need right now when you more will come based on the same concepts/technology but with the all the kinks worked out and streamlined production?

It's like how the first smartphones were clunky and expensive as fuck, with future models rapidly became both better and cheaper, with the leaps in technology rendering those first smartphones just as obsolete as the tools they were integrating and replacing. The F-35 is the expensive clunky model, which you don't need because all the tools of yesteryear still work fine right now. The development in technology is valuable, but why procure it in massive numbers now?

>>32798849

>And you think a handful of F35Cs on carriers will make the world of difference?

Yes. A carrier without fighter jets is fucking useless.

>>32796423
One F-117 was shot down. Due to extreme complacency, luck, and balls.

The F-35 can't be shot down even under the same circumstances because it can actually detect if somebody's lighting it up with radar.

>>32798801
>Procuring F-35s in large numbers is important because China, Russia and India seem to have plans to build as many as a thousand 5th gens between them.
It's still going to take them a lot of time to get there, and that's assuming those plans even come to fruition. Procuring the F-35 now just risks them becoming obsolete/not as overwhelmingly superior by the time SlavChinkPoos get their 5th gen fighters going.

I'd say you'd be better served using that technology to develop a F-22 2.0

>>32796425
And? Extends airframe lifetime and seems to be a good system. F-35B pilots can master STOVEL in just tens of combined sim/live flight hours, versus hundreds for the Harrier II.

>>32798885
But Anon, you already have assloads of jets that are more than good enough.

>>32798885
But we already have super hornets, anon.

Besides, the main issue is that the F35C may not be ready for a long while, while A and B variants are all but operation ready at this point. A and B will be important variants to have in and around japan, and F22s could theoretically serve the same purpose better for air to air combat.

Super hornets already outweigh 95% of China's air force, you're a fool to think whatever scrap heap of gen 5s they might have in the next few years would ever be even remotely close to enough to win a war in their favor.

>>32796641
He's a con man who's good at bullying people out of their money. And he barely became president.

>>32796658
Your flaw is thinking a comparable Hornet is even possible.

>>32798942
>And he barely became president.
Isn't that usually the case? The only exceptions I remember were Bush's second election and Obama's first election, and those were for very specific reasons.

>>32798914
Meanwhile the AV-8 / F-18 / F-16 fleet continues to eat pilots and no conversion training is done

>>32798807
>>32794129
That's what the tweets were for, this will be different; this has a good chance of allowing F-35s to be produced even more rapidly:

>a review of the F-35 program to determine opportunities to significantly reduce the cost of the F-35 program
The most achievable and rapid method of doing that is to commit the US to a block buy. At the moment, the US won't be participating in a block buy until something like 2019 or 2020 because it's currently contingent on the F-35 having and passing its IOT&E (operational testing done after the jet has completed development - partner nations are not subject to that rule and are already participating in one). Trump could probably void that condition with an executive order and immediately save a few billion.

Remember, this order comes 2 days after Trump met 12 leaders of US industry; Boeing wasn't invited, Lockheed was.

>>32798861
>Yeah, but considering that integrating to the degree that the F-35 is attempting has not been done and the plane has more than its fair share of issues why would you settle for it?
Two reasons:
1. The F-22 was the early adopter platform; it was the one that spearheaded the sensor fusion, aviation network centric warfare craze, etc. The F-35 goes further, but the F-35's radar, EW system, even the F-35's shape, etc is based upon the F-22.
2. The issues it's had are ones that you'd have with any fighter program. Cutting the F-35 to build a "more matured" F-36 or whatever would just leave you with another 15-year development cycle, etc.

To use the phone analogy, the F-22 was the original iPhone, the F-35 is something like an iPhone 5 or whatever. You can throw it away and try to build an iPhone 7, but you're going to be waiting years, by which time you'll be wishing you'd built the iPhone 11.

1/2

>>32796813
So, for retards like you.

>>32794101
There is nothing in your provided picture which supports your assertion.

>>32798982
>no conversion training is done
>>32796425
>Apparently f35 pilots rarely fly. It's all simulators because it costs a shit ton for flight hours

You don't need the plane (or a fleet of them) to do that.

>>32796861
>I am wrong about everything I say and I'm proud of it!

>>32798914
>Procuring the F-35 now just risks them becoming obsolete/not as overwhelmingly superior

Not really.

>I'd say you'd be better served using that technology to develop a F-22 2.0
>you need to develop the F-35's tech so you can use it to develop 6th gen aircraft

Whew.

>>32798959
Your flaw is relying on a strawman.

>>32799026
I think you're falling for the old Strawman Ad Hominem fallacy fallacy by spouting that over and over without understanding what it means.

>>32798990
>That's what the tweets were for, this will be different; this has a good chance of allowing F-35s to be produced even more rapidly:

Shh, you will trigger their cognitive dissonance.

>>32798861
>>32798990
>The development in technology is valuable, but why procure it in massive numbers now?
The ~2500 F-35s being built for the US are being built through to around 2038.
Over that period, and beyond, the F-35 will be getting a software upgrade roughly every 2 years and a hardware upgrade roughly every 4 or so.

>>32798914
The F-35's are being procured over a lot of time as well. Buying an F-22 2.0 would be expensive, and there's only so far that quality goes to beating quantity, at least with 5th gen vs 5th gen.

>>32796425
F-35 pilots still fly plenty of hours (the USAF has budgeted the fewest hours per pilot and they're still flying 250 a year on average). That's compared to just over 300 hours a year for an active F-16 pilot.

>>32798935
That 95% figure is decreasing rapidly; J-10Ds, J-15s, J-20s, etc outclass the Super Hornet and China is going through a phase akin to where the US was in the 1950s/60s with aviation.

Remember too that of the jets that the US owns, only a fraction will be capable of being deployed to fight over in Asia.

>>32799053
>A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

Yep, you were using a strawman.

>>32797185
37 pilots who are all instructor pilots, test pilots, or some other advanced skill set with an average of ~1500 4th Gen flight hours AND sufficient experience in the F-35 to properly compare. Not that many of those, but you should fucking listen to them.

>>32797190
So why the fuck is he on track to sign more EOs in 100 days than Obama did in 8 years?

>>32799071
To think that China's mediocre fleet of fighters would compare to super hornets, F22s and F35Bs (both japan based) is laughable. To think that China having a handful of fighters capable of challenging US aircraft would have an effect on a war that could go semi-large scale is even more laughable. Assuming China's fighters could effect the outcome of the war is like saying the Army's new P320s could effect the outcome of a war. So much more goes into war and geopolitics than what handful of 50 planes a country might have at their disposal.

>>32798406
All Chinese 4th-gen fighters are threats to our 4th-gen fighters, to greater or lesser degrees.

If you are imagining a wartime scenario where Super Hornets are picking off J-11s by the bushel without incurring substantial losses, wake up.

>>32797281
The US has never funded abortions. He defunded groups that provide critical health services that might do abortions with other funding sources.

>>32799130
Because he is fulfilling more campaign promises in a week than Obama did in 8 years.

>>32797327
>Hiring freeze
>Ever anything but a stupid blunt instrument that let's critical jobs go unfilled and turns away the younger workforce, aging out the employee pool
Stop sucking the orange moron's cock.

>>32797390
Mattis' first responsibility is to the US' military readiness, not Trump.

>>32799173
This is modern /k/ right now.

>>32799189
Nah, just an ass blasted Hillshill.

>>32799134
Today probably not, but they're rapidly fielding jets equivalent or superior to the Su-35.

Again, nobody is talking about the jets they have today in January 2017, but what they'll have 5, 10, 20, 30 years from now. It won't be 50 jets, it'll be more like 500.

I'm not saying they'll be unstoppable; I think with the expected purchase of F-35s, as well as continuing development of programs like PCA and F/A-XX, the US will be fine. But the idea that we could cancel the F-35 at 500 jets and be fine for the next few decades is dangerous.

>>32797395
>Repeating this as if it means anything about the F-35
You do know the F-4 was a multi-service, multi-takeoff profile multi-role and was excellent, right?

>>32797406
Not happening. Ever.

And they said Trump's tweets were just posturing.

MEME MAGIC MUHFUGGA!

>>32797485
So actually do the right thing and take the effort to identify the redundant or non-productive individuals, not a fucking retarded blanket hiring freeze to reduce headcount by attrition.

Oh, wait, I forgot, Trump only wants easy fixes he can report in 140 characters or less.

>>32799196
>>32799189
The Government Accountability Office determined that every past Hiring Freeze was a disaster that actually cost the government more money than it saved.

>>32799173
Stop fucking crying, it'll be a 6 month hiring freeze at the very maximum, and more likely around 3 months. This is to "drain the swamp" of poor and corrupt politicians and department heads so they don't hire and train more bad habits, such as shredding veteran's letters and requests without even reading them in order to attempt to shorten a backlog created by corruption and poor training. It isn't about how many employees you have to read and care for vets (and other major government departments) if they're shredding and deleting important shit in order to ignore the problem and shorten backlog. Because the shorter the backlog, the more pocket stuffing people back do without getting a bunch of surprise audits. Which, might I add, will probably be the case before we continue hiring in major government agencies.

Now knock that topic off, this isn't /pol/ and you obviously have no fucking clue what you're talking about when it comes to government instability and corruption. Been fighting with the VA for the past 7 years over such stupid bullshit such as losing medical records, decision appeals, etc. Only to find out the same VA and many across the US are fucking shredding documents without even reading them just to shorten the already inconceivable backlog they shouldn't fucking have to begin with.

>>32799227
>>32799224
He's reducing the bureaucrat, a very, very good thing.

>>32797745
B-21s will be a lot cheaper because:
A: Known airframe design
B: Technologies pioneered in the F-35

And the F-117s were pretty badly flawed in many ways, even F-22s can do their job decently enough now.

>>32797808
No, he just filled it with his own sewage.

>>32798935
>>32798922

>You should never develop new aircraft if your current aircraft are good

By that insane logic, we should have never developed the F-15 because the F-4 was good enough. And we should have never developed the F-4 because the F-86 was good enough. And we should have never developed the F-86 because the P-38 was good enough.

>>32799231
>Stop fucking crying, it'll be a 6 month hiring freeze at the very maximum, and more likely around 3 months. This is to "drain the swamp" of poor and corrupt politicians and department heads so they don't hire and train more bad habits, such as shredding veteran's letters and requests without even reading them in order to attempt to shorten a backlog created by corruption and poor training. It isn't about how many employees you have to read and care for vets (and other major government departments) if they're shredding and deleting important shit in order to ignore the problem and shorten backlog. Because the shorter the backlog, the more pocket stuffing people back do without getting a bunch of surprise audits. Which, might I add, will probably be the case before we continue hiring in major government agencies.

Yeah, fuck thsoe corrupt politicians patrolling National parks.

And the treatment of Veterans is despicable, that's why I'm glad Trump is preventing the VA from hiring more doctors, their numbers need to be reduced through attrition.

Veterans really don't have trouble finding jobs after leaving the military, that's why I support putting as hiring Freeze on the Federal government, because they hire too many Veterans.

And It's a good thing the DoD is exempt, because there is no corruption or waste going on in that department.

>>32797810
>stock tanks
It's around the same point as when the orange baby made his first tweet.

>>32799283
He filled it with the best people.

I swear to fucking god if Trump ordered you all rounded up and thrown into gas chambers you'd spend you last breath defending him and shouting down anyone who objects as a butthurt liberal shill.

>>32797832
>Cabinet made up almost entirely of campaign donors
>Even wants son in law in a job
Sure fighting corruption there.

>>32799292
Are you trying to guilt tripping people into anti-hiring freeze by using veterans?

Protip: veterans are much better doing private jobs.

>And It's a good thing the DoD is exempt, because there is no corruption or waste going on in that department.
We are looking into the F35, m8.

>>32799318
Thank you, I needed my daily dose of liberal salt.

>>32799316
>Climate change denier (and someone who's suing the EPA) for head of EPA
>Anti-net-neutrality guy who supports monopolies for head of FCC

>>32799318
I swear to god if Trump orders a repeal of the NFA and Hugues Ad, there will still be people kicking and screaming around here.

>>32799292
lol the govt hires vets over trans black amputee xymen.

what world have you been living in for the last 8 years.

>>32799336
>Climate change denier (and someone who's suing the EPA) for head of EPA
Draining the swamp.
>Anti-net-neutrality guy who supports monopolies for head of FCC
An actual bad choice, but we will see.

>>32799336
>Trump isn't draining the swamp because I disagree ideologically with his choices

Neat.

>>32798228
Oh, hey, a MANPADS magnet!

I mean sure, if you only plan to use it in secure airspace where nobody has snuck in weaponry...

File: vets.png (914KB, 1484x1042px) Image search: [Google]

914KB, 1484x1042px

>>32799345
In reality, as opposed to the /pol/ bubble.

>>32799306
Seems like the Orange Baby can change the stock market with 140 words or less.

Praise Be!

>>32799354
So you think that being charged more for your internet is good? And that climate change is good?

>>32799352
>Draining the swamp.
More like letting the swamp rise

>asshurt hillshills are also asshurt LM nuthuggers

wew lad

>>32799352
>Draining the swamp.
How are you going to drain if sea level rise just floods it again?

>>32798366
Good job outing your retardation. In recent exercises the F-35 has proven excellent in every task presented.

>>32799367
Climate change is a scam.
>More like letting the swamp rise
Oh god, we have actual climate change believers here.
>>32799370
Sea will wash away the swamp, really.

>>32799368
>Boeing shill uses guilt by association

>>32799354
>Replacing a guy with a PHD in Physics as the head of the DOE with a guy who has a failing grade in Animal Science because he was a supporter

>>32799387
Anything else on your script you want to share?

>>32799387
>replacing someone who scams with someone who doesn't, because he was a supporter

>>32799382
>Climate change is a scam.
99% of the scientific community disagrees.

>>32799368
>Air force want the fucking planes
Lol whatever they're just liberal shills

>Marines want the fucking planes
Lol whatever they're just liberal shills

>Navywant the fucking planes
Lol whatever they're just liberal shills

Look, Trump is going to REBUILD our military guys, we don't need more advanced

File: Ajit-Pai-fcc-commissioner-dailycaller-e1393023988346.jpg (81KB, 1200x516px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1200x516px

>>32799336

>This bullshit

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/#4ca615fd4c7f

>But we should not let that debate obscure some important common ground: namely, a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. Indeed, this consensus reaches back at least a decade. In 2004, then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell outlined four principles of Internet freedom: The freedom to access lawful content, the freedom to use applications, the freedom to attach personal devices to the network, and the freedom to obtain service plan information.

>Respect for these four Internet freedoms has aided the Internet’s tremendous growth over the last decade. It has shielded online competitors from anticompetitive practices. It has fostered long-term investments in broadband infrastructure. It has made the Internet an unprecedented platform for civic engagement, commerce, entertainment, and more. And it has made the United States the epicenter of online innovation. I support the four Internet freedoms, and I am committed to protecting them going forward.

Ajit Pai isn't going to kill Net Neutrality. He has never expressed any desire to kill net neutrality. That's a liberal smear campaign, pure and simple. He very strongly supports the principle of net neutrality. So now, scary Indian dude isn't coming to steal your internet.

>>32799402
And I disagree with 99% of the scientific community.

Nice try.

>>32799405
There is that strawman again.

>>32799414
I wonder who I should believe?

>>32799405
I hope Trump rebuilds the military by improvising the ground force instead of shoving all the money into the air force.

File: 75995795.jpg (77KB, 435x580px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 435x580px

>>32794101
Bring back the F22 with improvements from the F35 program e.g. low maintenance RAM

>>32799418
You literally said that people who support the F-35 are "Hillshills".

I'm pretty sure you don't understand what Strawman means

>>32799427
>improvising the ground force

>>32799421
The guys who don't scam.

>>32799405
>$0.05 has been deposited into your account by Lockheed Martin™

>>32798967
Clinton and Obama bothe had pretty solid leads both elections. Dubya at least lost the popular vote by only half a million.

Trump rode 100,000 votes in three states to victory with a 2.9 million vote loss in the popular count.

>>32799430

No.

>>32799359
vs 100+ years collective experience from people i know on the ground trying to get jobs after they EAS or retire.

but mah charts!

>>32799437
So I should believe the fair and generous, massive energy corporations?

>>32799440
Make it 2.1 million.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/report-hillary-clinton-received-votes-non-citizens/

>>32799427
Yeah that's probably what he'll do, he'll create a welfare program for his base by hiring a bunch of enlisted infantry, pad out the Navy to 350 ships by building row boats, let the air force decay into nothing and

>>32799455
I believe the guys who give me the energy, yes.

>>32796621
For some fun, study how the USAF and other services got rid of small CAS aircraft. They won't be getting them back and at this point bugsmasher CAS birds would be better as UAS.

>>32799445
My data > Your anecdote

File: giphy.gif (480KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 493x342px

>>32799026
>Facts about what can be done with a 4th gen design is a strawman

>>32799467
You mean who sell you the energy?

>>32799461
I'm fine with that, army, marines & navy are all you need.

>>32799461
>>32799405
>literally so asshurt you angrily slam the keyboard and post accidentally before your finish
l m a o :^)

>>32799476
Yes?

>>32799169
Because Obama actually tried to work with Congress and follow the Constitution?

>>32799439
>Everyone who disagrees with me is literally being paid to do so

>>32799487
Only one of these sides actually wants your money.

>>32799470
i mean if you just want to take a chart at face value instead of experience from someone who's been there on the ground

but whatever nobody's gonna change your opinion

>>32799231
>6 month
He literally promised to reduce headcount by attrition, and I don't give a fuck who you voted for, you need to keep an eye on what the shady fucker is doing.

>>32799492
>Bongo working with Congress and not EOing his ass off

payback's a bitch ;^)

>>32799443
Yes, bitch.

>>32799524

Nope.

File: 59070.jpg (89KB, 622x818px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 622x818px

>>32799519
gtfo of here you libtard faggot

>>32799262
>Derp

Until it's bureaucrats who do things you need. 15 ATF NFA reviewers retire while your SBR sheet is in the queue, what are you going to say then?

>>32799316
>Bitter opponent of public education with zero public education experience, but a big check to his campaign nominated for Secretary of Education

>>32796425
Nice, dude. What was your ASTB score?

>>32799538
SBRs are for queers

>>32799344
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

Also:
> No one can criticize der fuhrer for the things he's doing!

>>32799535
>He literally promised to reduce headcount by attrition
>gtfo of here you libtard faggot
Look, here is the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, literally written and signed by Trump himself

http://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/trump_hiring_freeze.pdf

>Within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with
the Director of OPM, shall recommend a long-term plan to reduce
the size of the Federal Government's workforce through
attrition. This order shall expire upon implementation of the
OMB plan.

THROUGH ATTRITION

>>32799364
The stock drop was tiny, it fell further and to a much lower point in August. It's still a lot higher than it was last year.

>>32799397
>>32799398
Retard apologists.

>>32799408
He has repeatedly opposed any effort to act in consumer interests and plans to undo the massively publicly approved Title II ruling.

>>32799459
Nice fake news source based on a study the author doesn't consider to have that kind of exact meaning.

Even then that's still an unprecedentedly huge loss margin to still win in.

>>32799507
Again, extremely experienced pilots versus random fuckface on /k/.

>>32799608
>Refuse to believe scientific study
>fake news!

lol typical