Can someone give me an up to date explanation of what's

>>32803569
mass production in 2018,no cancellation,over 3000+planes will be built and over 11 countries who are buying the F-35.

File: F22 Raptor Air Superiority Fighter.jpg (99KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1024x768px

>>32803569
About 5 years and 200 billion behind the F-22.

>>32803616
Not happening, most countries are pulling out of the program, and we are switching to super hornets.

File: 1480173288031.jpg (35KB, 480x360px)

35KB, 480x360px

>>32803872

>>32803872
Are these facts or alternative facts?

>>32803876
Facts
>>32803874
It will.

>>32803569
>More than 200 F-35s are flying with about another 250 in production or pre-production.
>Jets are currently flying in the US, Italy and Israel. Those that have jets in the US today will start taking them home within the next couple of years (eg, Norway at the end of this year, Australia in March next year, etc)
>They're hit IOC with the USMC and USAF.
>The USMC have deployed jets to Japan and will deploy jets to the Middle East later this year. The USAF will deploy somewhere (probably Europe) this year as well.

The Trump administration, via SecDef Mattis, has ordered a review into methods of making the F-35 cheaper; this will likely result in accelerated F-35 orders. They're also going to review whether an advanced Super Hornet could be an alternative for the US Navy. Worst-case scenario is that the Navy still buys F-35Cs, but not as many, such a cut would have a miniscule difference on the program overall.

Problem-wise, the hardware side of things is pretty settled (the most serious issue would be that the F-35C variant's folding wing tips needed to be reinforced to withstand transonic buffeting while carrying AIM-9X missiles; they've already developed the fix and that'll be test flown in the next few weeks). Software is still an issue; mainly with complex things like making multiple F-35's be better at figuring out whether there are two separate over in the distance, or whether F-35 #1 and #2 have their target bearing 0.1 degrees off relative to F-35s #3 and #4, resulting in the squadron thinking that there's two separate targets. Such things will never be 100% accurate, but it's just a matter of making sure that it won't be an issue ~99% of the time.

>>32803872
Zero countries have pulled out so far; Canada might become the first, but they're still a partner nation and still allowing it to compete in their upcoming competition. Overall, F-35 customers have increased with South Korea and Japan signing on. More like Singapore are jumping on too.

File: 4WD mod.jpg (891KB, 1920x1200px)

891KB, 1920x1200px

>>32803569
it so convoluted it's become almost impossible to shut down

watch this for the specifics

https://youtu.be/ba63OVl1MHw

File: a-12.jpg (85KB, 907x601px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 907x601px

Only somewhat related but I didn't want to start another thread for it. Was cancelling the A-12 a mistake?

File: F35 front.jpg (390KB, 1024x683px)

390KB, 1024x683px

>>32803569
The F35B is in operational use by the USMC and has just recently been deployed to Japan. Israeli F35A's will enter service later this year. I believe USAF F35As have also reached IOC.

>>32804085
>flying wing for anything other than a strategic bomber

no

>>32803982
evidence?

File: boi.jpg (64KB, 630x800px)

64KB, 630x800px

>>32804054
>uses VOX(liberal bullshit) as evidence

>>32803569
>F35

which one

>>32803988
The F-35C just landed in Lemoore and VFA-125 has been reactivated.

>>32805284
That was more a summary than evidence.

Still building more assembly fixtures for JSF ABC. Not sure where this bunch is going. Probabbly Milan or Jerusalem.

F35 electronics are years ahead of the Raptor. F22 would be up for upgrades had the procurement gone on. New technologies would have stretched out the raptor budget many fold.

File: 22.jpg (71KB, 550x448px)

71KB, 550x448px

>>32805284
picking your news based on the brand rather than how conclusive the information is

no news outlet is perfect, so look at info from all of them rather than having one party or the other lie to you

>>32804054
It doesn't even give any real reasons the aircraft is bad.

>doesn't understand the benefits of concurrency
>muh $1trillion program without mentioning that's the cost of EVERYTHING until 2050 and its in 2050 dollars
>out of context cuts of DOD members mentioning issues that have been or soon will be fixed in order to make the aircraft look bad

Shit video senpai, there's a reason we talk shit about vox.

F-35 is a platform of so many novelties that there has been only two other eras in the past to try out all of the unknown
>Early 20th, no real systematic established mathematics, physics nor materials testing, just feels, and it was a take off in the atmosphere

>50's and 60's, creating new but necessary mathematical models that didn't exist before, creating new interpretations of applied physics that didn't exist before, creating new materials that fucking did not exist before, and it was a take off to the moon

Honestly, in the F-35 they are putting together new stuff at the level no traditional aircraft manufacturing community would ever approve.

The best guess is however they will do it.

>>32805992
Nigger what the fuck are you trying to say

>>32806010
Nigger that you can't avoid it nigger.

>>32803569
The F-35B entered service in 2015 and the -A reached IOC last year. The Navy's F-35Cs are projected to reach IOC in 2018, and the first deliveries to foreign customers have already begun. The F-35 has also made its first foreign deployments, and software development is still going on schedule.

Trump's shitposting has had no effect on the program yet, and given the way he operates, he probably only jumped on it in the first place because it'll be easy to spin the continuous per-unit price drops as a victory for him.

>>32806010
We are this rich. Both in wealth and new things.

>>32804085
Most likely not. Though the program was poorly managed, the technology wasn't mature enough at the time, and it would have resulted in an expensive hangar-queen that would end up being superseded by the Navy's next fighter (assuming that the NATF was cancelled but the ATA remained) before the next real conflict could arise.

>>32806205
>Trump's shitposting
Prez Trump likes to fight things. It's a well known feature of his.

However if he is convinced on the necessary, he will absolutely give it a go.

*******

Not related, but here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYFvuBM-Vms

File: Eagle shit.jpg (181KB, 1842x1074px)

181KB, 1842x1074px

>>32805794
>rather than how conclusive the information is
Tell us, what conclusive information does that video present? I watched it. I've seen it a few times, actually, usually when it's been posted by a hopelessly uninformed jackass like yourself trying to seem knowledgeable about the program.

Tell me what specific information it presents. All I see is:
0:40 "the 16-year 1 trillion dollar project"
>the cost mentioned is not already sunk cost, but projected lifetime cost for 2,500+ total fighters including buying the jets, spare parts, upgrades, training and servicing for them. The statement is disingenuous at best.

:044 "late... over budget..."
>he is using numbers from mid-90's proposals, budgets and schedules to make things seem far, far worse. Not the actual 2001 contract award.

1:00 muh super spoopy Military Industrial Complex with spoopy audio music
>remember kids, everything organized is evil and any system not completely perfect is entirely shit. What follows is "big corps make a lot of money making/selling arms, they must be douchebags", etc. You'll note he fails to mention that military arms sales make up relatively small portions of these companies bottom lines, only that "as a result, they are some of the largest companies in the world"

CONT

File: Sagan Science.gif (2MB, 400x225px)

2MB, 400x225px

>>32804054
>>32806363
1:43 "jobs in their home state" to porkbarrel/buffalo congress into compliance
>this is absolutely true, and the way lobbying for military contracting has worked since before 1900 and the construction of the "Great White Fleet" and America's rise to military prominence. Pretending as if this is some nefarious F-35 based plot is either ignorant or incredibly naive. Either way, again only half the facts/context. Congress is and always has been susceptible to horse trading. It's how governing gets done at the Federal level. The same system applies to energy, oil, automobile, airliner, trucking/rail/other transport, and really every kind of big manufacturing industry in the US. The only thing that will change this is voters start valuing political integrity in their politicians more than they value those politicians buying their loyalty with jobs in the district. It's on all of us.

2:00 "legislators who support these contracts" with a pic of John McCain
>holy shit, the overwhelming ironing here

3:27 "deep design flaws and constant problems"
>this reporter obviously didn't even bother to read ANY of the DOT&E or GAO office reports on past similar projects. The F-15, F-16, F-14, even the F-18 and F-18E/F (both of which were considered very well run projects/designs) all had far more problems and far worse reports. Here are some examples:
1981 F-18 GAO report: http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/114371.pdf
1977 F-16 GAO report: http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/116765.pdf
>the F-35, in spite of being three distinct aircraft, has had far, far fewer issues, zero fatal crashes and zero airframe loss crashes. None of the most successful 4th gen fighter programs in the world can claim the same about their development and early service.

CONT

File: Spacey Unimpressed.gif (891KB, 325x252px)

891KB, 325x252px

>>32804054
>>32806363
>>32806389
5:00 More bitching about concurrency/how the project is set up
>see above. While concurrency takes longer to get the jets into service, they are actually effective when they get there. The F-16 was called "The Lawndart" for constant engine compressor stall/crash issues for the first 7 years of service. Ditto the problems with the F-14 and F-15 - the F-15 was operating at around 30% combat availability for much of the early 80's. The F-18 suffered large early career issues with vert stab buffeting/cracking. All of these problems required tons of money and time to retrofit the hundreds of already produced aircraft and affected combat stance in the interim. The F-35 program design avoids this by testing for and tracking down these issues with a much larger LRIP buy and fly before FRP begins. And, again I note, it has worked.

5:50 "enemies don't even have air forces"
>so because our current enemies don't have air forces, we should never, ever prepare for one who does? This fucking moron doesn't even understand the concept of conventional deterrence, or the reason no one fucks with the US in conventional conflict anymore is because we are so much better equipped and trained for it. Same logic goes for the similarly flawed "Russia/China don't have it yet" argument.

In short, you fell for the oldest trick in the book. This "informative video" provides no specific flaws with the F-35 itself, nebulous criticism about how the project is set up without any reference to the broad context, and provides ZERO alternatives. When someone calls something shit, uses vague reasoning, avoids specifics and completely fails to mention viable alternatives, THEY'RE TRYING TO SELL YOU SOMETHING. And you bought it, hook line and sinker, because you're too stupid and blinded by your own bias and prejudice to actually do your own fucking research.

Pathetic, and you should be fucking ashamed.

>>32806307
>Prez Trump likes to fight things. It's a well known feature of his.
Prez Trump is making policy decisions based on Fox News special reports, not the wealth of information and experience he should have at his fingertips as leader of the free world. Talking to literally ANY mid-level staffer in the relevant department would leave him better informed to actually make a decision on the matter.

>>32806363
>>32806389
>>32806405
God damn, anon. I've seen some skullfuckings on /k/ in my time, but fuck man.

>>32803569
Trump saw something on FOXNews about how expensive they are, now he's convinced they're shit.

They'll probably be cancelled and the taxpayers out billions of dollars unless Congress comes in and overrides him.

>>32803569
>where is the F35 currently in terms of development and operational use?

Behind schedule and over budget

>>32806540
>unless Congress comes in and overrides him.
They'll have to. Their own jobs are on the line when Trump costs each of their districts several thousand jobs with a few late night tweets and a bullshit obstructive executive order.

Honestly, though, he won't do shit. He has no power of the purse, he can only put in some roadblocks. Mattis isn't dumb enough to cancel the program, and he's only fucking with the F-35C to piss on the Navy and maybe throw a bone to Boeing lobbyists. He won't do anything more drastic than pushing back/cutting back F-35C buys a little. The USAF will revolt if he tries to touch the F-35A buys; it's their #1 most important project. They'll give up the B-21 before they let him fuck with it.

>>32806566
>Behind schedule and over budget
Name a single fighter project since 1965 which hasn't been.

>>32803872
>>>/pol/

>>32806602
>>32806540
I guess they were serious when they said CTR had a new budget.

>>32803569
Compared to the F-111, F-14, F-15, F-16 and many, many others, it's kicking ass and taking names. It ain't perfect, but it's rolling along very well.

File: 34634.jpg (61KB, 591x555px)

61KB, 591x555px

>>32803569
>Trump is asking about super hornets
it's the art of the deal

f35s are going nowhere, just getting a better deal

>>32806363
>>32806389
>>32806405
>anon goes in dry

>>32806609

More like name a single government program EVER that hasn't been

>>32806626
>point out any flaw, any criticism or any impingement of reality on Trump's promises
>CTR CTR CTR CTR CTR

Grow the fuck up.
The man's fucking with our national security based on Fox News segments and whatever bullshit crosses his mind at 2 in the morning that he can get into a twitter post box. Everyone said he was going to be different when he got into the oval office, more measured, more mature, more considering. When the fuck does that happen?

Also, since when does CTR get pissed off at defense cuts/stupid decisions about not spending on defense?

>>32806657
There are aspects of the program and the design which could have been handled better. The same can be said for any project, especially in military procurement. But shitting on it and trying to get it cancelled at this late date is pants on head retardation. It's absolutely necessary for long-term national defense that the program gets whatever it needs and our forces get the numbers they need at this point. Pretending otherwise without any sort of viable alternative is just stupid.

>>32806657

The program to put 30mm guns on the Stryker came in under-budget.

File: 45787484.jpg (399KB, 1000x2040px)

399KB, 1000x2040px

>>32806662
>fucking with our national security based on Fox News
fuck off butthurt shill

>>32806688
Smaller programs/modifications/upgrades often do. It's the initial procurement design/project/buys that never seem to, the big projects. Case in point: the Stryker itself came in late and over budget per unit, mostly due to fucking with the design long past the point at which it should have been frozen, tested, modified and sent to FRP. Just like the Brad, the B-1, B-2, F-22, F-35, etc, etc, etc.

The reason shit is so often late/costly often has only a little to do with the producing companies getting greedy. Design change mandates from congress or the DoD or a changing battlespace or tech/material science not being where they need to, all these things can buttfuck a big program.

>>32806685

We could afford any fighter program we want if we didn't insist on spending billions to let jiggaboos sit around all day doing nothing

>>32806715
>i have no counter argument
>i have no meaningful contribution
>i have no face
>i will call him a shill

>>32806737
Take it back to /pol/. Has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

>>32806746
The hilarious irony of this post.

>>32806715
>posts content from VOX of all places (left as you can go without changing your last name to Marx) as proofs
>gets faceraped
>accuses others of being liberal CTR shills

/k/ is just baffling sometimes

>>32806654

It doesn't work if the threat is transparent. The only thing he can realistically do to drive down price per unit is to place additional orders.

>>32806449
You really are a butthurt /pol/ person, aren't you.

The fact that you have a 2x4 up in your ass doesn't mean that your fellow citizens would like to have one just because you are telling it to everyone you have one.

So, no, thank you. Please go back to /pol/. This is /k/.

>>32806775
Why do I get the impression you were the one who posted the Vox video.

>>32806806
Sure. I posted the vid just so I could post
>>32806363
>>32806389
>>32806405
Makes perfect sense.

File: 6486499.jpg (101KB, 1200x800px)

101KB, 1200x800px

>>32806780
fuck off shill

"Lockheed Martin CEO tells Trump the cost of F-35 will be ‘significantly’ lower"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/01/13/lockheed-martin-ceo-tells-trump-the-cost-of-f-35-will-be-significantly-lower/

>>32806941
The price was dropping long before Trump started saying anything.

>>32806602
>Honestly, though, he won't do shit
Yes he will. The President has broad authority to end contracts and he'll do it if he thinks it makes him look strong.

>>32806941
The program is trying to lower the price as much as it can and has been doing so for years, this is simply a restating of the facts. The idea that the F-18 bluff was successful at all is laughable.

I have a question about F35C, does it have a refueling probe? I don't think it does, so does this mean Navy will eventually abandon buddy store thingy? I thought it was a nice concept.

>>32807009
>>32807034
Let's get the facts here, if they have lowered prices, what was the price before Trump and after?

File: F-35C-refuel.jpg (182KB, 1024x805px)

182KB, 1024x805px

>>32807482

>>32807014
>The President has broad authority to end contracts
You really should take a little more time to educate yourself on what the Executive can and cannot outright do, and that's before we talk about the field day Lockheed could have in court with breach of contract suits. Trump can't just quietly settle out Lockheed and force some signed NDAs like he has with half the contractors (and many of the lawyers) he's ever worked with. If he unilaterally shits on this contract, Lockheed will gleefully facefuck the DoD in court, not to mention how pissed our F-35 partners are going to be when their price per unit triples overnight due to reduced unit production volume.

>t. Lawyer

>>32807504
Prices have been decreasing as the aircraft advances through its production phases, there was no change recently if that's what you are wondering. Back in 2013 they projected the F-35A model was projected to cost $80-90 million in the full production rate, it currently costs around ~$100 mil per aircraft (small batches), and this projection is still expected.

>>32807504
>Let's get the facts here, if they have lowered prices, what was the price before Trump and after?
The price per unit goal has been about 85 million after a year or two of FRP. Latest LRIP 9 buy pegs the F-35A prices at about 105m per unit IIRC. In LRIP 1 the prices were over 160m per unit.

The prices have been dropping since before Trump even said publicly he was going to run for President the first time, as per program goals.

>>32807574
So Lockheed themselves said their prices were lowered, but there's no change.

>>32807556
Congress purposely wrote clauses in the law to allow for such things. Circumstances of war change; think of shipyards that had to cancel battleships in favor of aircraft carriers.

>>32807585
So even if the prices are lowered now, it's not Trump's deed?

Funny how that works.

>>32807598
No, prices have been going down for years. There was just no immediate drop in price before and after Trump brought it up.

>>32807504
>what was the price before Trump and after?

I think 100 days from inauguration has been the traditional interstice for Every previous president to do even their first move on anything.

Prez Trump may indeed shorten that by many tens of days.

In such case, The real question is, which kind and type of media you are going to follow to be properly updated?

Anyway, I am, and You are also sorry for the /pol/ content at /k/.

>>32807034
>The idea that the F-18 bluff was successful at all is laughable
Yes, but to the layman who doesn't really follow military procurement, it's easy to sell it as that, especially when you've got the Trumpcucks holding up the man as their messiah.

Looks like Trump just saw an easy way to win some political points in the long run and jumped on it.

>>32807602
Which law would that be?

Reducing unit buys due to the exigencies of ongoing conflicts is a hell of a lot different from cancelling an entire program just before FRP is reached out of pique. Bad faith doesn't even come close to covering it.

Any defense contractor, especially a program as large as the F-35, has specific timelines and goalposts they must reach. Even if they don't reach it the DoD/Congress has to work with them in good faith to address the issues. There are very complex but concrete remediation schedules for budget overage or schedule overrun, which in this particular case mostly involves LM and subcontractors eating most of the overage as sunk cost.

As the incremental buy contracts continue rolling in on the timeline, the President has very little to do with the actual buy process. Congressional committees review the contracts and cut the checks after the DoD negotiates the buy.

If the DoD cancels the project, they have to answer to Congress as to why they are in danger of falling short of Congressionally mandated force levels in the near future.

If Congress tries to kill the buy, most of them get voted out of office by irate, jobless voters in the next election cycle.

>>32807619
That's all I need to hear.

Now I wait for the update on F35 cost after the F-18 flyoff.
>>32807633
>Anyway, I am, and You are also sorry for the /pol/ content at /k/.
Nigger what? We have been talking about the F35 since 10 years ago.

>>32807682
I'm well aware of how easy it is to take advantage of an uninformed public and its actually kind of unsettling how powerful his cult of personality has become. I've wondered what our country will be like going forward now that we have drank the poison that is populism.

Relevant here:
Gen. Mattis this week during confirmation hearings:
"Many of our allies have bet their air superiority on the F-35 program, and it bonds us tightly together with them,” he said during a hearing on his nomination this week. “The president-elect has talked about the cost of [the F-35], but he has in no way shown a lack of support for the program. He just wants the best bang for the buck.”

Trump isn't going to cancel the F-35. He's just going to shit on it some to gain some quick political capital.

>>32807687
You're approaching this as if Trump is a rational actor who knows or cares about the law.

I live in Dry Gulch #2884 in the Great Sonoran Desert, and they fly overhead a shitton out of Luke Airforce base. They have mock dogfights and I've seen them drop a dozen or so flares at night a couple times. Someone told me that they weren't supposed to break the sound barrier around here, but they do quite a bit.

>>32807747
You're pretending as if Trump somehow has powers well beyond those of his office.

As I said, legally, all he can do is throw up some roadblocks and obstruct here and there. He would need broad congressional and DoD support to can the entire F-35 program, and he'll never get that.

>>32807733

>He's just going to shit on it some to gain some quick political capital.

Political capital with WHO? Nobody in congress wants to cancel this plane (except maybe John McCain and he's just 1 guy).

>>32807715
>after the F-18 flyoff.

It won't differ from the projected cost, the Navy is trying to buy more F-18's (started two years ago) and we already know it won't affect the price.

>>32807775
The people like OP who know very little about the program aside from what mass media on both sides have been screaming for years:
>F-35 no fly
>F-35 cost much
>F-35 late
>F-35 no work so gud

So to these people, it'll look like Trump is "doing something" about the "swamp". When in reality he's fucking with things he has little understanding of, things which will greatly affect our national defense readiness for the next 50 years.

>>32807775
Its from a largely uninformed group that actually thinks we'd be better off cancelling it.

File: Screenshot_2016-05-09-15-52-25-1.png (387KB, 949x540px)

387KB, 949x540px

These threads always crack me up.
Keyboard warriors arguing about a jet that they have never seen or worked on.

I weld and assemble over 12 parts for the f22 and F35.
I deal with stealth coatings every day

We are ramping up very fast
Lookheed wants a F35 a day soon and they are 100% serious about it.

The price has been falling for a while and PRATT Whitney has a bunch of cost cutting measures planned since 2008.
Current prices are $82 million for the f35A.
A fucking steal compared to every other fighter available

Also, the government just ordered 200 more F35s, so Trump isn't cancelling shit.

>>32807482
You're wrong though. Also, drone tankers are their goal right now.

>>32807762
He can fire the people underneath him you know.

>>32807687
What the fuck bum ass law school did you go to? You have a limited understanding of contract law. Good faith isn't done out of necessity, it's done because it's usually the best option with major contractors. If Lockheed is in breach of contract due to the failure to provide the product originally asked for in a timely matter, without the issues it already seems to have, then the government is going to act on the clause they wrote into said contract that allows them to cancel it or revoke certain parts of it. Lockheed can't fail to deliver the product for years on end and then turn around and say "they canceled our contract!!! :(". Yeah, because you failed to fucking deliver.

>>32807762
>>32807775
>>32807801
>>32807802
>HUR DUR I VOTED FOR HILARY

>>32807809

Keep up the good work anon.

>>32807777
That has a lot more to do with keeping the Ford class, Columbia class, Virginia class and Flt III Burkes funded than it does the USN being dissatisfied with the F-35. Remember that with the superbugs, the USN has the most modern and recent fighters of any armed forces branch due to the F-14 retirement. Add this to the deep, gut-wrenching terror they feel about the following:
>lack of direct Tico replacement as they retire
>SSN gap as all the Sturgeons were retired from '94-'04, all the LA class boats are retiring two per year and we're not building VA class boats fast enough to close the gap in patrol coverage
>Ohio class boats are nearing end of life, need replacement
>Nimitz class ships will begin needing to retire one every 4-5 years very soon
>No clean sheet DDG or CG designs yet in the works after Zumwalt cancellation
>SSBN design still in early stages
>first unit Ford running into a lot of teething issues

Basically, the Navy currently has different priorities. They feel like they can get away with postponing the F-35C buys, but they ABSOLUTELY cannot fuck with Ford, VA, Columbia or Burke Flt III funding.

>>32807816
>He can fire the people underneath him you know.
Sure. He can fire Mattis. He can even try to get a replacement that will can the program. But he has to get congress too, and good fucking luck there. Also, it'd be a political disaster if he alienates the entire military just to can the F-35.

>>32807882
>entire military
And pisses off all the other countries that bought some.

>>32807801
>When in reality he's fucking with things he has little understanding of, things which will greatly affect our national defense readiness for the next 50 years.

And when this results in an accelerated block buy, you will fade into the shadows like you never criticized it.

>>32807897
And the 150,000 people who are out of a job.

(Not that anon)
>>32806602
>There are checks and balances on the president, therefore he is totally without power!
>Late night tweets are bad and scary for some reason!
>Donald Trump's cabinet won't work with him because I said so!
>>32806662
>I've totally imagined Donald Trump's thought process and you're not going to like what I found out!
>Liberal media promised me he'd be more moderate why didn't that totally unsubstantiated expectation happen?

There I refuted your autistic fear-mongering. Please shut off your beat to shit 2005 Macbook, throw away your cup of water, and exit the Starbucks.

>>32807861

>lack of direct Tico replacement as they retire

Isn't that what the new Burke destroyers with AESA radar are for?

>>32807900

What's going to happen is that Lockmart and the DoD will continue making steady progress just as they were already doing but now Trump will try to take credit for it.

>>32807900
>And when this results in an accelerated block buy, you will fade into the shadows like you never criticized it.
What could possibly induce you to think he's somehow going to accelerate buys when he does nothing but shit on it? This isn't negotiating the price on a used car. If he convinces congress to up the buy rate, he needs congress, the public, the military everyone behind the program and happy with it or nothing happens. If he spends the next six months taking daily shits on it, what are the chances the public will be please to hear he's upping buys on it?

>>32807903
I'm part of the 200,000, we would be fine.
Most companies make a few parts for the F35 and a bunch of commercial stuff.

It wouldn't be as large of a hit as you would think.

>>32807825
>Lockheed can't fail to deliver the product for years on end
The budget and scheduling issues were due to mismanagement of the program - the JSF stuck to the original budget and timeline devised in the '90s despite the fact that the DoD had decided to mature a bunch of technologies with the aircraft after the contract had been awarded. Since the program was restructured in 2010, the F-35 has stayed about as on-budget and on time as you could reasonably expect a program of this scale to be.

>>32807927
>Isn't that what the new Burke destroyers with AESA radar are for?
The flight IIIs are a stopgap, not the next generation. The USN is still shitting bricks about a clean-sheet next gen DDG/CG. There's only so much you can cram into a Burke hull before it makes more design and financial sense to purpose build for new technologies.

>>32807939
>have fly off
>F-35 demonstrates superiority its critics cannot argue against
>stonewalling stops

It's almost like your cognitive dissonance is stopping you from thinking.

>>32807825
You are clearly entirely ignorant of just how much of the delay was beyond Lockheed and their subcontractor's control. Design and requirement changes coming down from the DoD and Congress from 2001-2010 account for a huge portion of the program delays, and the JSF program office itself is not without blame in management misfires. There is no court in the world which would award Lockheed sole responsibility for program deviations from the mid-90's schedule, especially when the 2001 and then revised 2010 program structures are what is actually legally binding here.

>>32807951

I honestly don't see any really reason why we need to continue to maintain the fiction that missile cruisers and missile destroyers aren't the exact same thing. The Ticos were/are a class of guided-missile destroyer. They were redesignated for purely political reasons.

>>32807967

The problem with this statement is that you're implying that F-35 critics actually have power, and they actually don't.

>>32807927
>Isn't that what the new Burke destroyers with AESA radar are for?

Flight III's will eventually replace Ticonderoga's as they are retired over the next 20 years.

>>32807967
>>stonewalling stops

That would presuppose that Trump would be willing to seem publicly wrong on any issue, even as part of a larger strategy. What are the chances of that, do you think?

Secondly, who was stonewalling before this week? Congress and the DoD were completely behind it and aside from some LRIP 9/10 price quibbling were full steam ahead.

Only the media and A-10 retards were shitting on it, and both are uninformed idiots in this case.

>>32807980
>Nunn–McCurdy Amendment

>>32807967
>F-35 demonstrates superiority its critics cannot argue against
That's only assuming the F-35 can actually demonstrate superiority over the Superhornet.

>>32807987
>I honestly don't see any really reason why we need to continue to maintain the fiction that missile cruisers and missile destroyers aren't the exact same thing
The Ticos have air/group defense command/comms facilities that Burkes lack. That's why there's always one with a CSG. They are not directly interchangeable, and it's why the USN is going to great lengths to extend service life and upgrade them. To add these facilities to a Burke would require a complete sub-class design.

Other than that, you're right. There's not a ton of difference in a II-A Burke and a Tico, but a Flight-I also lacks flight facilities compared to a Tico.

File: 1327627679386.jpg (69KB, 447x453px)

69KB, 447x453px

>>32807987
>>32808002
>the F-35 had no critics in congress, let alone ones with relevant committee seats

File: what bullshit.jpg (256KB, 1000x980px)

256KB, 1000x980px

>>32808022

>>32808011
>Nunn–McCurdy Amendment
Not applicable here. The F-35 is well under the +25% line at this point in the buy process, as per the 2010 program guidelines. Again, read up on this particular case.

>>32808011

Nunn–McCurdy was already triggered, which is what prompted the restructuring of the program. Since then there hasn't been any serious issues.

>>32808024
>every F-35 buy hasn't proceeded on schedule and with dispatch
>one or two voices of dissent in the committee somehow equal congressional stonewalling

Jesus, anon

>>32808022
Better range, low observable, better energy recovery, and it has excellent new sensor fusion.

>>32808024

Lame-brain McCain is the only guy in Congress who has really tried to hurt the program, and that's just because he's an A-10 fanboy.

>>32808044
>>32808011
Not to mention LM is protected and the DoD was forced into the 2010 restructure due to the overruns being just as much if not more due to DoD/Congressional fiddling as it was LM mismanagement.

File: 347358.jpg (55KB, 461x499px)

55KB, 461x499px

>>32807009
>>32807034

>>32808037
>implying this statement is wrong in any way

>>32808054
>sensor fusion
anyone that uses this cringe pr term outs themselves as a poser btw

>>32807715
>We have been talking about the F35 since 10 years ago.
And the Prez has been in office for a couple of weeks.

You really are a person who either can't read or reads selectively based on absorbed word array induced spinal twitching (can't be cerebral, no way).

>>32807941

Nobody loses a job in aerospace because a single program gets scaled back. I'd simply put in more work on the Boeing SLS rocket program or the Boeing 777X.

Which tends to suck a bit because Boaing is a shitty customer, but alas.

>>32808412
The company I work for has a fuck ton of Boeing contracts.
I'm not worried.

They started to order a bunch of f22 parts recently anyways.
The first rounds of mantience is starting

>>32808696
Genuinely curious: Any issues with trade union takes in the near future? Or is it all past history?

>>32808238
>I have no idea what sensor fusion is, but I need to sound knowledgeable

t. you

>>32808238
Not really.

>RWR, Radar, EOTS data of you and your entire flight all on one screen to show you the relative position of every threat.

You're just retarded. Sensor fusion is definately a thing and it reduces pilot workloadZ

A few were already made and exported.

>>32808756
Unions are complete garbage.
I'm glad I don't work for one.

Boeing is acually thinking of moving away from the union.
Their non-union plant gets more work done while getting paid less than the WA one.

>tfw one day there will be no more "what's up with the F35?" threads

I swear I've been reading these fuckers for years

>>32808196
Sorry you were triggered.

>>32809138
You mean you've been reading essentially the same thread about 400 times over the course of years

>>32809187
They've changed a good bit as more and more performance data and pilot reactions have come out. Back in 2011 I was happily shitting on it with wet, soft serve shits with the rest of /k/. Shortly after the hard data started coming out which finally made it clear what being a sensor shooter meant, and what this fighter was actually meant to do. Then all the pilots started weighing in as they showed up for training. Now it's really hard to deny that it will be every bit as if not more successful than the F-16 was/is. All the rest is just noise.

File: Scorpion_5.jpg (93KB, 1024x682px)

93KB, 1024x682px

Why don't they get textron to make an alternate airframe for the F35?

>F35
>Built mostly using metal, requires extremely expensive forged titanium bulkheads
>Basically constructed the same way as 1970s fighters with some carbon composites used the skin
>Took decades to design partially due to these reasons and the extreme tooling requirements

>Textron scorpion
>Virtually all carbon composite
>2 years from concept to being built
>Carbon fiber tooling costs trivial in comparison.
>Weighs less than comparable metal aircraft.

>>32810201
How does it handle high speed maneuvering? Is it sturdy enough to handle Mach 1? Can you pull 5Gs?

File: 1458434153544.gif (3MB, 291x300px)

3MB, 291x300px

>>32810201
>not VLO in radar or IR
>no sensor fusion/DAS/EOTS
>no HMD
>top speed 450 knots, not even close to supersonic
>no STOVL variant
>no CATOBAR variant
>not even comparable to an F-16 air to air much less emerging 4+/5th gen threats
>less than half the payload

Comparing the Scorpion to the F-35, or even just the project requirements for the F-35, is like saying "well, Hyndai can build a coupe so why can't they win the LeMans?"

Jesus, anon. It's like you don't know your dick from a hole in the ground when it comes to military aviation.

>>32810316
Right now it's limited to +3.7, -.5G. That's roughly the airframe stress limits on a passenger airliner. Not sure if that's design limit or current tested envelope.

>>32810316
>Is it sturdy enough to handle Mach 1?
Oh, and that has nothing to do with "sturdiness". Mach angle alone (the angle from nose to wingtip) will prevent this aircraft from ever breaking the sound barrier, no matter how much thrust you put on it. It is strictly subsonic, and in fact slower than an A-10.

>>32810360
>in fact slower than an A-10.
Shit, I take that back. It's slightly faster than an A-10. Cocked up never exceed and top speeds in my memory, just double checked.

>>32810316

>Is it sturdy enough to handle Mach 1?

The plane tops out at around 450 knots.....nowhere near the sound barrier. Actually, the B-2 stealth bomber can go 100 knots faster than that.

>tfw I just want the F35 to continue because I think it is fucking sexy as hell, and I want to put my dick in that plane

I can't be the only one

>>32810322
>Comparing the Scorpion to the F-35, or even just the project requirements for the F-35, is like saying "well, Hyndai can build a coupe so why can't they win the LeMans?"
>Jesus, anon. It's like you don't know your dick from a hole in the ground when it comes to military aviation.
No, get Textron to make a carbon composite copy of the F-35. The scorpion has many citation parts, the same approach could be used with the F-35. Reuse most of the F-35 components but give it a modern carbon composite airframe. They make many large sections of the scorpion parts in huge molds while lockheed spends a billion hours forging ribs, bulkheads and then assembling them into planes.

>>32810444
Again, how durable would the airframe be? Would it be able to sustain high Gs and high speeds? Would the payload be compromised? Would it be shredded by any incoming fire?

File: bubbles.gif (2MB, 500x274px)

2MB, 500x274px

>>32806405

>>32810444
You cited the Scorpion as proof that Textron, as a design house, was ready to design, build, test and produce something as huge in importance, tech level and performance as an F-35. That's an utterly ridiculous conclusion, as I pointed out.

Their little jet, while possibly great as a trainer or even low intensity permissive airspace COIN aircraft, is nowhere close in performance to Gen 3 US fighter aircraft, much less Gen 4 or 5. I'll be watching with interest what they produce in the future, but the construction materials and design elements they used in the Scorpion are currently rated at passenger airliner G-limits, and would not survive even 10 CATOBAR cycles, and most definitely wouldn't even be able to pull even a moderate anti-SAM dolphin profile.

They aren't there yet. You repeating that they are does not make it so.

>>32810201
>>32810444
>this guy

HEY GUIZE, SOUTH KOREA CAN BUILD T-50 TRAINERS, SO THAT MEANS THEY CAN PUMP OUT F-35s AMIRITE?

I mean, shit, that aircraft is a hell of a lot more impressive than the Scorpion. Stop and actually think about what you're saying, junior.

>>32810444
The Scorpion, at best, will be a 5G aircraft. The F-35 is 7.5-9G depending on variant, and much much heavier. Plus carrier flight cycle requirements for the C. Are you suggesting the same composite bulkheads will work for the F-35, given these performance requirements? Do you think Lockheed is using Ti bulkheads just for shits and giggles, and because they love flushing their money down a toilet? Do you think they wouldn't use cheaper materials and production techniques if not performance/DoD mandated?

Where the fuck is your head at, anon?

File: ss-091204-spaceshiptwo-08.ss_full.jpg (108KB, 1200x800px)

108KB, 1200x800px

>>32810543
>Again, how durable would the airframe be? Would it be able to sustain high Gs and high speeds? Would the payload be compromised? Would it be shredded by any incoming fire?
Far stronger than the existing one. Military aircraft designs have fallen behind civilian applications due to a lack of competition. You have boeing and lockheed engineers who have decades of experience building extremely expensive plates out of exotic metals, but minimal experience building an entire airframe from carbon. They know they would lose to smaller companies with decades of composite experience if they go that route. Because the government is willing to buy their expensive planes they have no reason to adapt to new technology.

Have a look at the aircraft scaled composites made for virgin galactic, they are entirely carbon composite airframes and reach supersonic speeds.

>>32810779
>Do you think Lockheed is using Ti bulkheads just for shits and giggles, and because they love flushing their money down a toilet? Do you think they wouldn't use cheaper materials and production techniques if not performance/DoD mandated?
They will oppose it because the difficulty of manufacturing those parts limit competition. Producing those parts require a 50,000 ton press and giant dies + tooling. There's only a handful of those machines around the world and costs are extreme.

Carbon fiber only requires a small factory, CF experts to build molds and a very large oven. They would go from only having to compete with boeing to having hundreds of companies offering competing bids to build CF airframes. It's in there interest to keep fighter jet production costs high as a barrier to prevent new competitors emerging.

>>32810808
Yep, you're retarded.

>>32810808
that's the mothership and it is subsonic

>>32810808
>>32810882
You are absolutely retarded. Even second year aeronautical engineering student would be able to point out just how insane it is to compare materials and production methods for 3ishG limit civilian aircraft and 9G military aircraft with payloads.

One of the main reasons its not suitable is the stress cycle structural components suffer on military tactical aircraft. Molded carbon composites are far more susceptible to catastrophic failure due to progressive brittleness over repeated stressing cycles.

There are several good reasons no one in the whole fucking world builds front line fighter aircraft with these materials, and it's not because they're all just behind the times and too hidebound to accept new ways of building things.

I know you think you're the one genius who has somehow stumbled onto the answer no one else can see, but stop. Just fucking stop and go read a book. Educate yourself.

>>32803629
Is the F22 considered Gen5?

>>32810201
>The scorpion
>In anyway shape or form comparable to the F-35

>>32811195
yes although their electronic warfare capabilities do not compare to that of the F-35 as its hardware is almost 2 decades old, but there is a retrofitting process underway which will bring F-22's to pretty much the same level (e.g. retrofitting of DAS). That's about as much as I can get into it, but someone like Dragon might have some more things to add.

>>32803569
It depends what "Theory of Trump" you're operating under.

>Trump is crafty, trying to manipulate public opinion by aiming to take credit for existing planned price drops by throwing a trumper tantrum at Lockheed

>Trump is genuinely retarded, and has been conned into thinking canning the F-35 in favour of Super Hornets is a good idea

>Trump has some kind of low cunning, he's looking for an excuse to can the F-35 because it's unpopular. Damn the consequences.

I'm sure you could think of others.

>>32811477
I think we're edging closer and closer to genuinely retarded territory, as the courts have already started dismantling his muslim deportation/denial of entrance executive order for the unconstitutional toilet paper it is.

File: SpaceShipTwo20Construction2.jpg (157KB, 1092x728px)

157KB, 1092x728px

>>32810938
Spaceship 2 and it's replacement are the same. In defense of the F-35 carbon composites probably weren't viable back during early development, things have changed dramatically over the last 10 years. There's pretty much nowhere left where CF won't outperform metal structures now, the only real limitation is metal is needed on wear areas around joints. Variables in flexibility and rigidity can be built in using different fibers in layouts for select parts. CF not being able to take impacts or shattering unexpectedly is largely an issue that has been solved as computer models for layup and simulation were developed.

>>32811539
>Spaceship 2 and it's replacement are the same
Both designed for a maximum of 5G stresses during descent/decel. Again, nothing made of these materials yet is designed for 9G operations.

You're calling for a complete redesign of a fighter aircraft with a 16 year project history of intensive development practically the night before FRP. Because it costs too much. As if your suggestion wouldn't add massive cost. And you're suggesting this be done with completely unproven materials and methods backed by "computer models and simulation". Do you have any idea just how fucking stupid you sound right now?

Read. A. Fucking. Book. You. Retard.

>>32811539
>the only real limitation is metal is needed on wear areas around joints.
Like everywhere in a fighter jet that has complex geometry internally and externally?

>>32811572
How is replacing titanium and aluminium with a stronger material going to reduce performance at high G? Metals are being replaced by carbon for aircraft props, sections of turbofan blades and every other situation where components are exposed to huge gravitational forces.

>>32811669
>stronger
There's a reason the longer the sword, the more flexible the metal. Aircraft aluminum and titanium aren't really flexible, but they can take high Gs without becoming extremely brittle and snapping because they are flexible enough to disperse pressure and force throughout the material, as opposed to composite which just allows for pressure points of force in the material that will eventually snap and break.

>>32806363
couldn't have said it better myself.

CAN WE STOP ARGUING WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO ARGUE ABOUT?!

>>32811531
Easy now, you are showing a slight amount of common sense and human decency, smeone should be along to post "ctr shill" and rare pepes any second now.

>>32803569

Some 350 are funded through 2020 no matter what.

Thats 2 a week.

>>32811531
>>32811957
How is it unconstitutional again?

I can't believe there are pro-muzzies on /k/.

File: biglippedfrogmannodding.gif (607KB, 800x792px)

607KB, 800x792px

>>32811957
>>32811988
It isn't unconstitutional, not in the slightest. If we didn't allow germans escaping ww2 into the US and closed our borders to them, nothing would have happened. We aren't throwing people in containment camps like the japanese or jews, we're closing boarders to a specific region of people. But of course CNN says "130 MILLION PEOPLE ARE ((-->BANNED<--)) FROM THE UNITED STATES!!!" When in reality nobody is "banned", it's just that no flights or passports from those countries will be let in. This is hardly a problem. We didn't let russians in during the cold war (for a while) and we didn't generally accept japanese or germans in our country during ww2.

The freedoms of US citizens aren't even in question. Those are the people the US constitution protects. There is nothing in the constitution that says we can't close our borders to regions we are at war with.

>>32811984
For the US or world wide?

>>32811698
They literally make vehicle springs out of CF now, CF is even more adaptable to situations requiring some flexibility than metals, rigidity can be limited to certain directions or progressively change through out a singe piece. With metal you are usually forced to compromise on an alloy that has the same properties everywhere.

>>32808196
Why is trump internet defence force always out in full force in F-35 threads? Why do you even post on /k/ if all you care about is sucking spray tan man's dick?

>>32812225
You obviously don't understand composite.

>>32803629
Gen 4.5. Even so, it'll still be the most effective air to air aircraft for the next 20 years.

>>32812299
Why aren't you able to make an argument without strawmanning or getting asshurt?

>>32813301
>>32808196

>>32812083
And the only thing courts are doing is dealing with people already in customs.

>>32813314
Yes, that is you based on your behavior.

>>32805794
>>32804054
>>32806363
>>32806389
>>32806405
Holyshit! Honestly I don't think I've ever seen a assplowing this brutal in all my years on /k/. Someone screencap this.

>>32813325
kys CTR, Trump won already

>>32812083
>The freedoms of US citizens aren't even in question. Those are the people the US constitution protects. There is nothing in the constitution that says we can't close our borders to regions we are at war with.
You are forgetting the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. I know people on /k/ only like to talk about the Second, but the First is every bit as important. That EO pisses all over it, not matter how you pretty it up and dance around the wording and "nationality" clauses.

To cut out, segregate and deport an entire segment of green card, visa and other visitors/prospective citizens based solely on religion and with no legal due process is dangerous to all our freedoms and unconstitutional. If we let this slide, it is a slippery slope.

>If we didn't allow germans escaping ww2 into the US and closed our borders to them, nothing would have happened.
I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say here.

>We aren't throwing people in containment camps like the japanese or jews, we're closing boarders to a specific region of people.
We are detaining and deporting an entire swath of people based solely on where they come from and who they pray to. I realize you probably don't see much wrong with the Japanese-American internment in WWII, but ask yourself the following:
>How many Italian Americans and German Americans were detained, and how many fought in Africa, Sicily, Italy, France and Germany?
>When the Japanese were allowed to fight in Europe, what was their combat record fighting for our great country? Hint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)#Service_and_decorations
The 442nd was one of the most highly decorated units of the war, and not just because muh SJWs.

>>32813521

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

>Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

>>32813561
>Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Except that Trump's order extends to visas already issued and green card/document holders already in process of attaining citizenship and goes further to order deportation of these people.

That is where it crosses the line from stupid into unconstitutional. Read that provision you posted. It references "aliens". Not people already here.

>>32813430
Not screenshotting your little tantrum, go away.

>>32813561
That's code. But because Trump is too stupid to govern even remotely effectively, he over reached in his order and tried to add a deportation clause. That's what's fucking him. That code only pertains to entry.

But, hey, he's a really really smart guy with yuuuuuge brains, so he didn't need legal advice from the AG or vetting in congress or anything else to draft this bit of retardation.

>>32811669
>with a stronger material
Stronger how? You keep saying it's better, that it's up to design requirements, but you give zero specifics on the matter.

Which composite specifically are we talking about? What are its UTS/UTSL/YSL ratings? Is it prone to brittle failure or is there detectable plastic deformation before complete failure to aid inspection? How elastic are the microstructures? Where does it fall on the Moh scale? Is it susceptible to UV degradation over time like many other carbon composites? How are the persistent slip bands and grain interfaces oriented and how to they respond to repeated load/unload cycles?

Finally, and most importantly for this application, what is this specific composite's ASTM rating, and where is its fatigue limit? AND HOW DOES IT COMPARE TO TRADITIONAL AVIATION MATERIALS LIKE FORGED Ti AND Al AVIATION ALLOYS?

If you can't even ballpark any of the answers to these questions or discuss specific composites on the table for consideration, you can fuck directly off.

>>32813445
Work on your ability to follow a discussion.

>>32813593
>That is where it crosses the line from stupid into unconstitutional.

If you repeat this enough times it will become true.

>>32813445
>When you reach the level of inbred that you call a Trumpist for a CTR shill

Let me guess, you are one of those people who think 9/11 happened under Obama as well, aren't you?

>>32814177
He revoked entry and started deportation for persons with legal right to be in the country, either through already issued visas or ongoing naturalization processes (green card etc.).

Under the 14th amendment:
>No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Yes, that's right. Constitutional protections fully extend not just to citizens, but naturalizing Green card holders, visa holding visitors and even undocumented resident aliens. As long as they are within US jurisdiction, they are protected by the US Constitution.

This was further upheld and enhanced by the 2001 SCOTUS ruling in Zadvydas v. Davis, specifically stating in the ruling that due process is required even for those whose presence may be or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory." Only Scalia and Kennedy dissented, and both of them not on the spirit but scope of the concept (Scalia noted that the national will should be exercised in very limited and specific scope to expel or detain certain unlawful actors - spies, terrorists, etc.). This was a direct repudiation of rendition activities being executed on US soil.

Furthermore, even 20 years before that, SCOTUS ruled unanimously in Pyler that undocumented individuals cannot be bared from the public school system. Again, 14th amendment.

Ten years before that in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973), SCOTUS ruled that all criminal code related amendment rights (First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th, stuff like search/siezure, self incrimination, due process, trial by jury) protect all non-citizens legally or illegally present. Again, unanimous decision.

CONT

>>32814177
>>32814605
This is an issue going back to three cases in 1886, 1896 and 1903 which set the precedent for the 14th amendment. In Wong Win v. United States (1896) SCOTUS specifically states the following:
>It must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection by those amendments [Fifth and Sixth] and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
These are the basic and constitutional protections which keeps us, as a civilized and fair country, from simply shooting visitors to our country in the face for petty crimes because they aren't "protected" by our laws because they are not citizens.

Stop and actually think for a minute, anon. These protections are good and necessary things, and if the situation were reversed and our citizens were not afforded every legal protection in the countries they visit, we would be considering military action depending on the severity of the case.

>>32814605
>>32814613
Sanity, facts and logic? On MY /k/? Who the fuck do you think you are?

>>32814613
>Stop and actually think for a minute
Aaaand that would be where you lost him, anon

File: TDKbatman.jpg (143KB, 352x527px)

143KB, 352x527px

>>32814657

>>32814613
>we would be considering military action depending on the severity of the case.
and in many cases where all legal protections are extended to our citizens but local law is considered heinously deficient to protect our citizens. Just one recent example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

>>32814605
>>32814613
Constitutional issues aside, Bush already tried something similar with NSEERS back in 2002. Huge waste of resources, and quietly killed as a failure a year later. 100,000 people registered but not one terrorist found.

File: 1458434342783.jpg (85KB, 480x319px)

85KB, 480x319px

>>32814605
>>32814613
Came for the F-35 shitshow. Stayed for the unexpected schooling in consitutional law. Thanks, bronon. Had no fucking clue. I thought the constitution didn't cover illegals.

>>32814830
>>32814657
>the rarest of Pepe's

>>32806602
Even Mattis' memo was basically just him making a jerkoff motion while doing the minimum to keep Trump happy.

>>32814830
>I thought the constitution didn't cover illegals.
It covers the human race, anon.

>>32807598
No, they made a wanking motion while saying they'd get on with what they were already doing.

>>32815286
>It covers the human race, anon.
As long as it's within US jurisdiction, yup.

>>32814605
>>32814613
>another anon goes in dry

This thread is great

File: kyA690r.jpg (36KB, 640x677px)

36KB, 640x677px

>>32813445

>>32803569
I wouldn't worry about it.

File: costanza stencil.png (43KB, 752x1062px)

43KB, 752x1062px

>>32804447
>1991
>Not wanting a badass Naval Space Dorito to do F-117 shit from a carrier deck
Shiggy