What went so right?

>>32857229

Blame Tel Aviv/Moscow/Beijing/Obama for that.

>>32857234
>Moscow
how the fuck?

>>32857234
>Moscow/Beijing
What?

>>32857229
>What went so right?
Purpose built fighter aircraft using tried and reliable technology that was refined from previous generation of jet fighters.

>>32857229
>And what went so wrong?
Attempted jack-of-all trades to replace everything with leading edge/experimental technology that hasn't been properly fielded yet in any reliable capacity (see: war zones), as well as political mumbo jumbo.

>implying the F-16's development was that smooth
[COMPRESSOR STALL INTENSIFIES]

>>32857229
>what went wrong
Letting the press have access to developmental reports that other nations never let out.

>what went right

Everything else.

>>32857716
By the way this post is for both airframes, as both were lambasted by the media, and both are god tier planes.

File: FUCKING GENERAL DYNAMIIIIIIIIIICS.jpg (143KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1280x720px

>>32857675

File: picture_43.jpg (322KB, 1600x1107px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1600x1107px

>General Dynamics
>Lockheed Martin

>>32857229
For the first jet:
>What went so right?
The incorporation of fly-by-wire, giving the F-16 a major turn rate and radius advantage despite having a higher wing loading than the F-4. A multinational procurement program also lead to the large numbers we have today, making it one of the widest marketed and heavily upgraded aircraft in history; from Block 1 to Block 72 today.
>What went so wrong?
Rushed testing left roughly the first thousand F-16s with dangerous aerodynamic flaws and many mechanical flaws; in the decade following the maiden of the F-16A, there had been 120 crashes, of which at least 32 were caused by design flaws. In the 5 years after that, that number rose to 249 crashes, with at least 58 caused by design flaws.

For the second jet:
>What went so right?
Achieving a 5th gen fighter at a 4.5th gen pricepoint; creating a weapons system platform that takes onboard a lot of lessons learned and combat trends identified over the past few decades.
>What went so wrong?
A too-ambitious / optimistic price and schedule at the beginning of the program.

>>32857653

> Purpose built fighter aircraft using tried and reliable technology that was refined from previous generation of jet fighters.

Lmao you idiot.

F-16 was the first fighter to use fly by wire and negative stability. These features were brand new and caused no end of troubles for the F-16A. The PW-F100 engine was also troublesome, despite being a carryover from the F-15.

List of F-16 frame-losses by year

1975 : 1 (under testing)
1978 : F-16 enters service
1981 : 5
1982 : 12
1983 : 19
1984 : 21
1985 : 16

By 1985, 74 of the 1484 F-16's built where written off. This was just 7 years after the start of mass production.

At it's peak, 30+ F-16's were lost in '90, '91, and '92.

In contrast, here's F-35 losses.

2014 : 1 (burned out on the ground)

The engine fire in 2016 did not cause a frame writeoff.

2 accidents out of 200 F-35's.

File: sprey.jpg (36KB, 575x350px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 575x350px

>>32857229
>And what went so wrong?
They slapped radars and other advanced avionics, BVR missiles and bombs onto a simple daytime interceptor that was only every meant to have a cannon and heaters.
t. Sprey

>>32857759
That's nice dazzle camo. I was legitimately confused about what way up the plane was.
Needs a false cockpit too.

>>32857873
>120 crashes, of which at least 32 were caused by design flaws. In the 5 years after that, that number rose to 249 crashes
How many deaths?

>>32857229
Single seat, multirole, we can fly right up our own asshole!

>>32858460
I actually haven't counted that statistic (I only get these numbers by looking case-by-case at F-16.net's database; counting pilot deaths will mean going through dozens of pages of incidents).

>>32858591
all you fuckers wish you fly the viper

>>32857229
What went right?
>Top image
Just about everything, t b h. the viper was the perfect mix of revolutionary (fly by wire, aerodynamic shaping, etc), and evolutionary (everything else) and it had the luck of being built during the cold war where the contractors weren't afraid to move fast and cheap during development because the next F-16 sized contract was always less than a decade away.

>Bottom image
The democratization of stealth technologies. The F-35 is normalizing low-RCS design at a price point that dozens of nations can afford in the same way that Honda brought DOHC VVT engine technology that previously was only available on Porsches and Ferraris to your average high schooler. It also has a god-tier AESA and targeting/ECM/data-linking setup.

What went wrong?
>Top image
Teething problems with CFD-designed airframe and fly-by-wire, baseline unstable airframe
>Bottom image
basically everything not related to RAM coating development and avionics. The F-31 is the F-111 all over again, where one branch (the USMC) will get everything they wanted, one branch (USAF) will be pretty happy with what they get, and one branch (USN) will curse the gods for getting saddled with the turkey of an airframe that they have.

The USMC (and the brits/italians/etc) wanted a stealth harrier, and boy did they get is. The F-35B is like something out of science fiction, watching a stealth aircraft land vertically like a fucking X-wing never stops giving me erections.

The USAF wanted a stealth replacement for the EF-111 and the F-117, and the F-35 is exactly that. It has some killer ECM/targeting capabilities, and it's a much more flexible platform than the nighthawk ever was (and stealthier, too). The USAF doesn't care that it isn't a good dogfighter, because none of the aircraft it's effectively replacing (the F-111 variants, the F-117) were good at A2A, either.

The US Navy desperately needed a fleet defense aircraft to replace the F-14's. They got a stealth rhino.

>>32858026
F-16 5% loss is not that big
F-35 already has 1%

File: ichiyon maga nope.gif (705KB, 433x711px) Image search: [Google]

705KB, 433x711px

>>32858949
>The US Navy desperately needed a fleet defense aircraft to replace the F-14's. They got a stealth rhino.
Incorrect. They desperately needed a replacement for the F/A-18s first and foremost since they're falling the fuck apart and the superduper hornets are about at the end of their upgrade path. Supersonic fleet defense interception is actually less of an issue now since Chinese bombers can be intercepted by land based assets out of the western Pacific, assuming Trump pulls through and gets the Russians to back down.

>>32858460
35 dead USAF pilots for 80-89. You can find official statistical data here
http://www.afsec.af.mil/aviationsafetydivision/aircraftstatistics.asp

>>32857653
I've seen some dumb posts but this one tastes the cake

>>32859145
I can buy the F-35C's as a decent replacement for the original hornets.

I just think that the USN needs the F/A-XX much, much more right now, and that choosing the Rhino over the Super Tomcat 21 was one of the worst decisions that the US Navy ever made.

A Super Tomcat 21 would have been much better at ECM and ATG than a Growler is at A2A, and I'd bet hard money that the upgraded tomcats would have had far fewer teething problems than the Rhinos did.

>>32859302
Super Tomcat design isn't optimized for A2G and that's what was needed. If the A-6 was kept as well then maybe you'd be right, but having just the Hornet and Super Tomcat instead of the Hornet and Super Hornet is a bad idea. A fleet defense fighter wasn't needed as badly with the fall of the USSR.

Stop letting your top gun boner affect your critical thinking skills.

>>32859281
How does the cake taste?

>>32857234
>Blame Tel Aviv/Moscow/Beijing/Obama
wut

File: Screenshot_2017-01-31-19-04-01-1.png (433KB, 1057x737px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 1057x737px

>>32857229
NOTHING WENT WRONG YOU NEANDERTHALS.
Lookheed just told us they want 2x the F35 parts in like a month.
They are 100% serious about making 2,300 F35 and shit is about to hit the fan.
We assumed that number was bullshit.
We were wrong
Idk how we are gonna make that mAny parts
Might have to work 6 12s
>Hurr Durr the F35 is gonna get cancelled by Trump
No assholes, the mad Dog dude wants even more of them.

Just fuck my shit up

>>32859435
he is using alternative facts, anon.

File: CF104_flight.jpg (110KB, 1280x904px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1280x904px

Are fighter jets literally the #1 coolest thing ever made?

How can anyone argue against that.

>>32859302
>>32859375
It's a mixed tale. >>32859145 is spot on the roles to be fulfilled. What's missing is heavy attack and fleet defense air superiority fighter. The USN ends up with a light plane not light enough and a heavy plane not heavy enough (or two middle of market masters of none) with a F-35 and Super Hornet mix. Extending a light attack multirole which also replaced heavy attack (Hornet) to a full fledged one size fits all multirole (Super Hornet) represents a loss of capability impossible to compensate. A heavy fighter can make up for the heavy attack A-6. The Super Hornet can't. It makes more sense to have you high end heavy 5th gen than this abomination air wing combo. Cost-wise you aren't going anywhere.
So how about a (stealth) heavy (Super Tomcat, F/A-XX) and a lighter multirole (Super Hornet)? No F-35C.

>>32857653
t. Light Rail Enthusiast

>>32859781
>>32859302
>>32859375

>>32858949 is spot on.

>>32859852
Fuck quotes,

>tfw Bob Gates killed my planefu
>tfw Rumsfeld prepared the knife

Why do statists hate aviation, bros?

Exhibit A is a cheap fighter.

Exhibit B is a jack-of-all trades.

You use the right tool for the right job or you get shit-tier results. Live with it.

Defence contractors cant make mistakes anymore. In the past there were fighters that were hyped to be wonder-fighters like the F-111 or F-105 but turned out to be duds. Now when LM fucks up they just cant admit they made a mistake so they they have to say More Money Plox and the Defence Department and USAF are happy to hand out an endless amount of money in cost overruns. Cost overruns are out of control now, it looks like Trump is going to bring sanity back. He mentioned something about Boeing to going to enter in and provide competition, so we'll see.

>>32859086
So how long have you had serious brain damage

>>32860361
>he doesn't know that LM pays for overruns

>>32860466
>they do now that Trump threatened to replace it with the F-18
600 million cost reduction, isnt that amazing how LM can magically lower costs when incentivized

>>32859086
Did you go for women's studies or sociology ?

>>32860548

They've been paying for overruns since 2010 actually.

>>32860548
>600 million cost reduction
Was already planned as part of production ramping up. Last batch was a little over $100 million a plane, plan is that -As will be ~$85 million by 2018. With Trump's "savings" of $600 million for the order of 90 planes, that puts us at a little over $6 million "savings" per plane - pretty much exactly what Lockheed had already planned for this batch.

He did exactly what everyone who actually knows anything about the industry expected - shitpost and grandstand to take credit for price reductions he knew were already coming.

>>32861238
I'm NEET, what do you expect
He is trolling, I troll him back

>>32858460
>>32858667
Here's a resource you both should find enlightening and useful:
http://www.safety.af.mil/Divisions/Aviation-Safety-Division/Aviation-Statistics
By-year class A, B and C statistics for every USAF aircraft in service and legacy airframes going back to the F-86 and B-47.

The F-16 page:
http://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Aviation/Aircraft%20Statistics/F-16.pdf

In the F-16's service history, there have been 85 pilot deaths total and 127 total mishap-caused deaths (much of the difference in the Green Ramp incident, see the spike of 27 deaths in FY1994).

>>32858460
>>32858667
>>32863563
Oh, and 333 total mishap-lost airframes in F-16 operational history over 370 total class A mishaps.

>>32858949
>The USAF wanted a stealth replacement for the EF-111 and the F-117,
They needed a replacement for the F-16. Period. The F-35 does that, and does it excellently. The F-111 hasn't been in USAF service in almost two decades; almost a decade for the F-117.

>The US Navy desperately needed a fleet defense aircraft to replace the F-14's. They got a stealth rhino.
No. The F-35 is meant to replace the legacy hornet fleet. Fact is with AWACS, Aegis and the sensor-shooter capabilities represented by the F-35C with the massive range upgrade in the SM-6 and OTH remote guidance, they no longer need a fleet defense interceptor.

The USN is, in fact, very happy with the F-35C. However, due to the urgency of the Tico refurbishment/life extension, Columbia program, Virginia program, Ford program, LCS program and Burke Flt III/eventual replacement, it is on a budgetary back burner. It doesn't matter to them if they get F-35C FRP in two years or six years. It matters very much to them that they make up the SSN gap from all the retired Sturgeons and retiring 688s, cover the ASW gap from all the retired OHPs, cover the MCM gap from the retiring Avengers, get something on paper to replace the Ticos, get the Ohios replaced and get the replacement for the soon to be retiring Nimitzes sorted out. All of these things take priority, some much more so than the F-35C. Remember that they have the most recent fighter buy of all the services in the F-18E/F and Growlers, and can keep buying those as stopgap if necessary.

The F-35/JSF program is and always was meant only to replace three aircraft: the F-16, F-18 and AV-8B. It is a successor in part to the F-117, not a replacement. From a timeline and mission standpoint, it will be taking on some of the mission load of the A-10 after retirement, but again it is not technically replacing it.

>>32860318
>Exhibit A is a cheap fighter.
>Exhibit B is a jack-of-all trades.
You do realize that the vinn diagram of F-16C and F-16J mission responsibilities and capabilities lies completely within the F-35As, right? That the F-35A does everything the F-16C does plus day-1 infiltration and strike, SEAD/DEAD, and all the other additional sensor-rooty aim and shooty 5th gen shit?

They're both literally jack of all trades aircraft, and they're both fully multirole. Just like the F-4. And the F-15E. And the F-14D. And the F-18. And the Rafale. And the Typhoon. And Grippen. Getting the picture yet?

>>32860548
>they do now that Trump threatened to replace it with the F-18

Still pushing this lie?

>>32857229
>Lawn Dart
>Up to 18 crashes a year

>Two ground fires and one minor air fire
>Still massively better record than everything else

>OP is a gigantic faggot

>>32857759
>Fly By Wire derps and hard nose-downs

>>32858026
>The PW-F100 engine was also troublesome, despite being a carryover from the F-15.
They were at least able to stave off the Stag/Stall that plagued the F-15 because they could install a splitter.

File: 1455017482129.png (170KB, 575x350px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 575x350px

>>32858303

File: 2010-02-12.jpg (313KB, 825x471px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 825x471px

>Viper driver with last name of Dhart
>Callsign Lawn Dhart

>>32857675
The F16 program was a home run, you cherry picking faggot.

Most successful modern program of that size ever. Do you even know how many have been produced so far?

>>32857873
>F-4
It flew circles around the F15 too

>>32858026
Huge difference in the numbers produced, you fucking autist

>>32862257
Fuck off commie, go reeeeeeee somewhere else

>>32863563
Are you retards aware of how many total hours that mother fucker has been in the air in the past 40 years?

>>32867623
>Most successful modern program of that size ever. Do you even know how many have been produced so far?
You'll be able to make the exact same argument about the F-35 in 10 years time.

>>32857229

Anyone think Trump will put a stop to the agreement Obama made with India which allows them to build F-16s?

>>32857716
Bingo.

>>32858949
Lol you're so wrong. The F-35 was absolutely not intended to replace the F-111 or F-117. It was designed to replace the F-16 and F-18 from the very beginning.

Muh turkey

The F-35 more than adequately replaces the F-16 and F-18.

File: Japanfinalcontenders.jpg (150KB, 590x326px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 590x326px

Post pictures of the exact moment a country went wrong.

File: F-104 G Starfighter_DSC_0688.jpg (254KB, 1024x662px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1024x662px

>>32859539
A flying coffin, but a dang sexy one

>>32857229

Too smol.
Too bug.

File: IMG_3530.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>32867791
>captcha Burnit Rd
Turdeau and Debt Dyke
t. Leaf waiting for annexation

File: XGPhxfe.jpg (79KB, 640x275px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 640x275px

>>32859806

>>32859489
Well, I'll be 100% OK with the F-35 if we end up having thousands of them to the point where any air war against China, etc would consist of us spamming 5th gens at them like T-34's in 1944.

For the anyone who dares to fuck with us, that would be like being on the recieving end of the alien invasion in Independence Day.

>>32867749
Are you out of your mind? F-35 is already the most expensive military program ever. Lockheed Martin needs another seven years to get it ready. As of right now, all versions are inferior to every air superiority jet built in Russia and most built in Europe since 1980 mid-short range within visual range combat (which is most of what happens. Beyond visual range is still a dream for most scenarios). Simulations shows it to be far inferior to not-so-agile jets like F-18 in close combat and to be decades behind real dogfighters like Rafale, F-16 and MiG-29. It is been deemed not fit for CAS because of the load type and the cannion still doesn't work properly since the plane gets unstable and misses all the shots when the pod opens. Its load capacity is too low for meaningful ground attack missions. It can't do air superiority because it's operational ceiling is too low and max speed is inferior to MiG-21 comparable to F-5s.
F-16 project was a success. Of course problems happen, especially with such a state of the aircraft like F-16. But it has had countless successfull missions. it has proved to be able to dogfight and middle range fight the most advanced Russian aircraft at equal footing and use its superior avionics to get a clear edge at longer ranges. It has been successful both at CAS and A2G.
There is no comparison here. F-35 is the most incompetent project in history of aviation. F-16 is among the three most successful (only inferior to F-5 and MiG-21 imo).

>>32862257
I am kinda impressed and somewhat scared at how easy it is for him to sell stuff like this to his fan-clubs.
I'm just waiting for him to tweet insults at the times that the sun rises, and then take credit for daylight savings time at some point

>>32868341
F-35 costs three times as much as better planes like Su-35. Numbers won't be in our favor.

>>32868387
The only correct thing you said about the F-35 is that it's the most expensive military program ever. But then again, so was the F-16 at one point.

>>32868387
EO-DAS and AIM-9X Block III make maneuvering pointless. Just fire a missile in any direction.

Not to mention EO-DAS is nearly fucking IRL hax on its own.

File: f16-firstflight-735x413.jpg (71KB, 735x413px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 735x413px

F-16
Unintentional first flight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR-48Kri0Tw

>>32868387
I honestly cant tell if this is satire or not

>>32868400
Unit price versus buying power matters. It could cost 3x as much but we can still afford more of them than Russia can afford the Sukhois, even being three times cheaper.

And they're still shit. AN/APG-81 is magic.

>>32868444
When it's about the F-35 honestly it's generally not.

>>32868400
>Numbers won't be in our favor
>USAF
Do you fight one on one?

>>32867637

What are percents?

I specifically included losses and total fleet strength. By 1985, which is the 6th year of F-16 mass production, 74 of 1484 F-16 airframes were written off as losses.

The same ratio applied to F-35 would mean roughly 14 crashes from the current 265 strong fleet (as of LRIP 9). Large scale production started from LRIP 4, which means the timeframes are very comparable.

Again, instead of 14 frame writeoffs, we have 1, and nobody even died from it. The F-16 project was getting shit from all sides when it was new. In 1983, you had almost dozen pilots die from F-16 crashes and 20 frame losses. That experience is what made the F-35 have the LRIP phase instead of entering full scale production ASAP.

>>32868444
>>32868464

F-35 threads get swamped by /pol/acks instantly because their god emperor tweeted some shit or something. These "people" wouldn't know what the S in S-duct stands for.

case in point, these idiots, which is likely the same person.

>>32867649
>>32867637
>>32867623
>>32860548
>>32868400
>>32868387

>>32857229
Unrealistic expectations. Fixed wings are meant to fly forward, not straight up, and we simply don't have the materials that can make a fixed wing vehicle hover reliably AND fly forward reliably, all in the same package.

Seriously, if Lockheed has had their best engineers on this for years, and it still can't be done safely and efficiently, I don't think it can be done unless we find some new alloy or unobtanium that will allow the mechanical aspect of this craft better fit the theoretical engineering specs that 'should' allow it to work efficiently and safely.

Either that or Lockheed just wants to suck the US government dry, and never intended to craft a functional replacement for existing planes. That doesn't seem like a good long term business strategy, though.

File: 16p00526_96-wolfe__main.jpg (37KB, 540x405px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 540x405px

>>32868673

>and we simply don't have the materials that can make a fixed wing vehicle hover reliably AND fly forward reliably...

Are you aware of the fact that your talking about an airplane that hit 50k cumulative flight hours in feb. 2016 already with only one airframe lost due to the engine fire back in 2014?

Try and compare that with the first 50k flight hours of other modern fighters.

>>32868673
>and we simply don't have the materials that can make a fixed wing vehicle hover reliably AND fly forward reliably, all in the same package.

Better tell Lockheed and the marines they did the impossible

>>32868426
Low energy missels will never hit a high energy target. That is why things like climb and turn rate DO matter. F-35 will flunk out whenever it meets a real adversary.
>>32868444
Google around. See what is being said by all the experts and simulations F-35 has been totally owned by every fighter it has come up against. And this is by people hired by Lockheed Martin.
A competent jet being piloted by sells sword russian/chinese/khazaki/indian pilots, like, say, a MiG-35/29 or even Su-27/30 using modern RR-77 will kill F-35 every single they meet.

>>32869255
Experts like who, Pierre Sprey?

>>32869255
>When you absolutely have to go full retard

>>32869266
>>32869275

https://warisboring.com/one-analyst-predicted-the-f-35s-s-dogfight-failure-50a942d0cf8a#.u6v4opbt5

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/inventions/the-us-defence-force-has-discovered-its-f35-program-is-a-trillion-dollar-blunder/news-story/aae67686cd9698523319f8876be5fb27

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/222380-the-pentagons-official-f-35-bug-list-is-terrifying

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144873/U-S-air-force-s-sophisticated-stealth-jet-beaten-dogfight-plane-1970s-despite-expensive-weapon-history.html

Yes. And Sprey too.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russias_MiG_21_Would_Rip_Apart_Americas_F_35_999.html

Have a good reading.

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

3MB, 1280x720px

>>32869368
>Yes. And Sprey too.
lol

>>32869255
>Google around
No faggot. I dislike the F-35 program to the point where I have actually lost sleep worrying about it, but you're making some outlandish claims and burden of proof is on, you fucking commie. Gib broofs or get the fuck out.

>>32869368
Hey, it's like a world tour of "completely full of shit."

>>32869368
>first link is WIB
Post discarded.

>>32869368
>HE ACTUALLY LINKED WARISBORING
oh god

>>32869255
This has to be bait. No one is this dumb

>>32869395
>>32869437
https://warisboring.com/don-t-think-the-f-35-can-fight-it-does-in-this-realistic-war-game-fc10706ba9f4#.3o6omvwxo

What's really funny is that even WiB can't make the F-35 anything but a curbstomper in CMANO.

>>32869368
>com.au
Oh. Nevermind, kids. It's a shitposting kangaroo, not someone who actually matters, much less actually does their research. Why else would he be using Aussie media to try and prove his point?

>>32869468
Confirmation bias.

>>32869388
Commie? You out of your mind? I'm stating fucking facts. Check out the links. It is what everybody that is not being paid to say otherwise is saying. I mean, the thing has the top speed of an F-fucking-5. It can't climb. It can't evade a russian missile cause it's got no thrust. It can't even explore our AIM-120 cause they don't have the ceiling or the speed to give it speed. It is a bad airplane and american heroes are going to be burried inside of it.
It is shit and Lockheed should be punished for disrespecting american tax payers with that.

When T-50 is out it is gonna be so much worse. And the funny thing is that it is gonna take long enough that the Russians will have their new radars and engines working on it before Lockheed put this jet out.

Lockheed. Ever heard of F-104? This is it times a thousand.

>>32869458
>What's really funny is that even WiB can't make the F-35 anything but a curbstomper in CMANO.
Technically speaking, they didn't write that article, they just copy-pasted it from the Royal Aeronautical Society (with permission I hope) in an effort to try and appear unbiased.

>>32869494
>Facts
>Editorials and blogs
Pick one.

>>32869368
>>32869494
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/red-flag-gives-f-35a-its-toughest-test-yet

www.sldinfo.com/the-moment-pilots-first-realized-the-f-35-was-something-extraordinary/

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

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/208740/f-35a-completes-largest-deployment-date

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunford-mulls-f-35b-ioc-decision-4-bs-take-out-9-attackers/

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-unscathed-hostile-fire-green-flag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLr7UZ_rywxTFdhDfu7SFimAMAUVdpabKL

>>32869494
War is Boring has long been regarded as a worthless, counterproductive source because David Axe is a liar with an agenda.

Your aussie source is worthless.

Extremetech is a site to learn about new GPUs and cell phones, and I spent a lot of time in that comment thread debating idiots like you.

And seriously, Daily Mail?

Pierre Sprey is another liar who has constantly inflated his near-zero participation and experience with aircraft design.

>>32869500
All based in verifiable evidence. Face the facts. How can the US and allies trust a jet that won't go beyond 1.600 km/h? It's the speed of a MiG 19. It's pre-vietnam. This plane is utter shit.

>>32869368
>July 2015
>July 2015
>Feb 2016
>Feb 2015
>Aug 2015

You are a complete fucking retard. 4 articles from 2 years ago and the most recent article is just some retard looking at the DOT&E report and saying "hey this report that points out the flaws in the program is pointing out the flaws in the program. Terrible plane 0/10."

You probably have no idea how bad the F-16, F-15, F-14, and F-18 were in development.

I had thought we had gotten rid of this kind of autism some time last year.

>>32869545
If the jet is so terrible, why does it dominate F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, etc, while simultaneously being able to take out advanced SAMs, etc?

>>32869545
1: Mach 1.6 is 1975 km/h
2: Mach 2+ is a waste of engineering resources when you can get far greater benefits in other areas.

>>32869545
why is speed going to be your one characteristic on which to judge all? Why don't we use blackbirds as interceptors/superiority fighters? Why does Russia even bother with mig-29s and su-35 when they have the mig-25 and 31?

The point is that we are going to see planes become slower, but harder to detect. This will also most likely be the last manned fighter as drones take over, meaning that they will become smaller as well as cheaper over time.

>>32869545
>going past Mach 1.5
Almost never happens in a normal scenario, not to mention that the F-16 is about as fast when it has bags and munitions.

>>32869584
It doesn't. It gets killed by F-16s. It's everywhere.
>>32869643
It is slow and that means it can't get there in time and it can't evade.
The fact that it is not a super cruiser means that it can't even be called 5th gen.


US is selling this plane to a lot of its allies. They already paid their share so they can't just bail out of (they would already have if they could). We're in for some interesting days.

>>32869755
Except it kinda does. It utterly curbstomps the F-16 in something around 99.9% of all cases. It's everywhere.

>>32869755
https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/27/f-15e-strike-eagles-unable-to-shoot-down-the-f-35s-in-8-dogfights-during-simulated-deployment/


https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

Am I being trolled

>>32869755
>It doesn't. It gets killed by F-16s. It's everywhere.
Never happened.

>It is slow and that means it can't get there in time and it can't evade.
Not getting spotted in the first place is better, and 1.6 is more than fast enough.

>The fact that it is not a super cruiser means that it can't even be called 5th gen.
>DERP!

It's a vastly superior plane to the competition at a very good unit price. Stop being contrarian and poorly informed.

>>32859539
>>32867957
>A flying coffin, but a dang sexy one
The F-104 was the F-35 of its day. Lockheed paid off european allies to buy that piece of shit even though it sucked as a fighter and bomber and was highly dangerous to fly. It ruined Erich Hartmann's career as he was fiercely against Germany buying these fighters but they were forced to get them anyway.

>>32870061
You know how I know you're an idiot?

>>32870061
>buy an interceptor and use it in A2G
>surprised it crashes a lot
Truly amazing comparison you've made anon

File: Vietnam speed.jpg (168KB, 710x919px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 710x919px

>>32869545
Just for you, buddy. Have some actual facts about real, actual combat.

All those gen 3 jets that the DoD demanded be Mach 2+? Never used that speed in actual combat.

>>32870061
this!
Lockheed is doing it again, but to the power of ten this time. This is more expensive then coming up with nukes or with F-15 or with Tomahawks or with any aircraft carrier we have protecting the free world as of right now.
This project is expensive and bad.

>>32870221
Another tard reveals his power level.

>>32868387
>>32869255
>>32869368
>>32869494
>>32869545
>>32869755
Is this what people call "alternative facts"?

I'm starting to wonder if Trumps PR-team uses 4chan as a recruitment tool.

>>32870203
Have you considered for a moment that Vietnam isn't exactly an applicable example anymore?

They were relying heavily on missiles to work well and they didn't. Having to turn onto a target a lot more means lower speeds.

BVR means higher speeds are not only possible but beneficial to range of any weapons you might employ.

>>32870203
Long range missiles didn't exist back then, retard. When you are fighting in visual contact distance speed is not that relevant. When you need your AMRAAM to hit the target 200 km distance, then you need to have a good ceiling and max speed so it can have as much energy as possible, giving the adversary little room for maneuvering and avoidance. Acceleration was also far away from what 4th generation fighters can do, so they can explore higher speed for escaping cruise missels.
This aircraft has no climb rate either. That means that whenever facing a real missile threat, pilots will have no way of acquiring higher energy levels to be used for avoidance maneuvers. Such maneuvers are likely not even possible with this flying brick and if they are, they'll require full post combustion which can mean not enough fuel to go back to base.

These concepts were not invented by accident. American men and women defending this country are going to die inside this aircraft.


>>32870171
It was used for A2G exactly because it was found not to be fit to stand its own against russian MiG-19/21.

>>32870240
The people that designed the F-35 disagree with you.

>HURR THEY JUST COULDNT MAKE IT GO FAST
They took lessons learned with the F-22 and determined it was more beneficial to have better transonic performance than be able to go Mach 2

Ask any fighter pilot how often they go that fast and you'll get the same fucking answer.

>>32870298
Mach 2 would have simply made it too expensive for its role, which is a strike fighter rather than air superiority anyway.

>>32870240
Yet I bet when the discussion turns to guns in A2A, you'll immediately point back to Vietnam with the meme about guns being necessary at all times (incorrect, of course, as any USN aviator from the conflict will point out).

Furthermore, RE: top speeds, combat speeds and supercruise, you completely miss the point that a combat loaded F-16 never travels anywhere close to it's "paper" top speed, whereas a combat loaded F-35 with internal bays and fuel and no additional drag from munitions and bags can do just that or close to. The aircraft are nearly identical in top speed and acceleration when combat loaded, as many sources have noted. To read more about this phenomenon and actually educate yourself instead of continuing to look retarded on the interwebs, consider the following:

CONT

>>32870240
>>32870340
From a FWS grad US pilot who flew F-15s, F-5E/Fs, F-16s and German MiG-29s:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379
>The jet accelerates well, but is not especially fast at low altitude. At lot is written about the F-15 being Mach 2.5 capable. First off, Mach 2.5 is altitude limited to above 50,000 feet and time limited to 1 minute maximum. I've flown the jet to Mach 2.35, its normal operating limit, on only a couple of occasions.
>We occasionally did intercepts against SR-71s in which we got out to Mach 1.9 to Mach 2.1, but flying at those kinds of speeds were rare.
>Accelerating straight up? That's a myth.
>Installed thrust-to-weight is slightly less than 1:1 with eight missiles and no external fuel. If you point the jet straight up and start climbing thrust starts to fall off as the air's density starts to decrease. Weight is not decreasing, as fuel is burned off faster than thrust is decreasing. So stop it everyone – there's no accelerating going straight up in the F-15.
>The limit [on the F-16] is based on the polycarbonate canopy and not the engine. At higher speeds the canopy starts to get warm due to air friction. At some point the canopy will start to deform if the jet gets much faster. At high altitude, I've had the jet out to Mach 2.05. This limit is due to the fixed air inlet and opposed the F-15's variable geometry inlet.
It should be noted that the Mach 2.5 limitation is because of the cockpit melting, not as much an issue of thrust, drag and mach cone. You people often forget little things like temp tolerance, material science, etc.

>>32870292
>Long range missiles didn't exist back then, retard
Lol. You're an idiot. It was by RoE, not capability.

Even then in phase two of Vietnam there were a significant number of F-4s equipped with the Combat Tree Non-cooperative IFF system.

>>32870340
>Yet I bet when the discussion turns to guns in A2A, you'll immediately point back to Vietnam with the meme about guns being necessary at all times (incorrect, of course, as any USN aviator from the conflict will point out).

No, the early heaters required just as much turning as guns. More room for error maybe, but you still have to get them on target. Which you're not going to be doing at M2.2

Not reading your TL;DR, wasn't a slight against the F-35's capabilities. Just pointing out that references to the 60s probably aren't a solid choice.

>>32868248
Fuck me, that is funnier than it ought to be

>>32870171
And it was one of the shortest service living aircraft in post WW2 USAF. That is how bad Lockheed fucked up. And we sold that to ALL our allies. Lockheed literally bribed politicians in Europe to buy that fucking coffin. In Germany they had over 2 hundred accidents. Lockheed has put american men and our allies, not to speak the entire free world independence, in jeopardy in the past, and they are doing it again with this plane. Let's see when this meets the new MiG-35, T-50, J-31 or Rafale in the battlefield.

>>32870292
Do you honestly think that fighters providing CAP just zoom around at Mach 1.6 all day?

>>32870292
>AIM-7 Sparrow : Introduced 1958

Just because you cant seperate capability vs ROE or use commen sense and google, you dont get to spew retarded shit without anyone pointing it out.

>>32870356
And it must be noted that the Navy had a better record the entire war and never had guns, because their pilots were both the elite few best suited for fighters AND they maintained far better training standards.

One of the big differences pertaining to the rear-aspect heaters was that most of the time AF pilots didn't even know the proper release envelope of their weapons, which lead to a lot more wasted shots.

>>32870363
Are you seriously this stupid that you think the mistakes in a Gen 2 fighter still matter now?

>>32870292
>This aircraft has no climb rate either.
It has a better combat loaded climb rate than an F-16, anon. This is from way back in 2008:
>I had the opportunity yesterday to fly the F-35 for the first time with the INTERDICTION COMBAT load of 2-GBU 31 (2000# bombs) and 2 AIM -120 missiles. In current fighters there is an expectation of performance degradation when carrying 5000# of ordinance but the internal carriage made any degradation hard to discern.
>The acceleration in MAX AB takeoff was very quick and interestingly there is an increase in the acceleration rate above 120 KCAS. The takeoff roll was very near to the 3500’ prediction. Once airborne I came out of AB relatively soon after lift off and continued to climb and accelerate in MIL power in a 10 deg to 15 deg climb attitude. There was plenty of performance. The climb out with full internal weapons carriage was particularly impressive to me.
>The climb rate seemed to be only slightly hindered by the stores carriage with climb angles near 15 deg in MIL power while in a 30 deg bank turn back over the field. Very pleasant to see clean fighter climb rates and angles while carrying a combat load. The chase aircraft still required brief inputs into AB to keep up with me. This is especially impressive because the 325 KCAS climb speed is well below the optimum climb speed profile for the aircraft.
>We only did a brief handling qualities test point on this mission but the handling qualities with this combat loading were indistinguishable from the aircraft with no stores.
>Landing occurred with 4500# of fuel and was easily stopped inside of an 8000 ft. runway length with brake temperatures cool enough to taxi straight back to the hangar.

CONT

>>32870292
>>32870408
TLDR: Back in 2008, with minimal refinement on the flight control laws, one of the early prototypes with a full internal combat load was climbing so well the clean chase F-16C required afterburner input bumps to keep up. It was climbing at roughly 10,000 feet per minute sustained in Mil power with a full combat load. That's damn impressive.

>>32870402
And in the F-104 no less. Most people who at least try to pretend to know what they're talking about use the F-111 as an example.

>>32870363
>PAK FA
>ever on the battlefield

>an interceptor 60 years ago from this company was bad so that means that this new aircraft is bad.
There's no way a single person in the company at the time the F-104 was produced is still working for them. You're grasping at straws nigga

>>32859781
When is the "hornet is less capable than tomcat" meme going to die for good

>>32870425
>but muh missile that never worked
>muh maintance intensive swing wing
>muh Tom cruise

>>32870292
>When you are fighting in visual contact distance speed is not that relevant. When you need your AMRAAM to hit the target 200 km distance, then you need to have a good ceiling and max speed so it can have as much energy as possible, giving the adversary little room for maneuvering and avoidance. Acceleration was also far away from what 4th generation fighters can do, so they can explore higher speed for escaping cruise missels.
You are comparing F-35 performance against dedicated A2A superiority platforms like the F-22, F-15, Typhoon, etc. Those aircraft were designed to first and foremost be air superiority platforms.

How about you compare it to the actual aircraft it's designed to replace? It kicks the shit out of the F-16, F-18 and AV-8B in all the metrics you list.

It's not designed to do the job of the F-22/F-15C. It's designed to do the job of the F-16, F-18 and AV-8B, and it does that very, very well.

>>32868829
>>32868947
They're not competitive in air-to-air combat, ergo they're not a jack-of-all-trades, and are basically useless against anything resembling a modern military. They can fly air-to-ground fine, but have less combat load than previous-gen fighters there, too.

In making this specific vehicle the solution for "all" problems, they created an inferior vehicle which does not adequately replace its predecessors in many.

>hurr durr evidence
see >>32869368, first link.

>>32870363
ITT: Pissed off German shitposter takes time off from moaning about the MBT70 program to shit on the F-35 because he's still pissed about the F-104.

Seriously, anon. Stop pretending that the F-104 situation is exactly the same as the F-35, or that the F-104 saga is anywhere near as simple as you pretend.

>>32870356
>Not reading your TL;DR
Heaven forbid people actual read something substantive and data/historically supported about the opinions they've formed. We wouldn't want anyone to actually learn something around here.

>>32870438
Im kinda impressed how many times i've seen this used as an argument.
>hurr duur, the SR-71 has better top speed than the F-35, F35 is turkey

I can understand that some people litterally dont understand the role that the F-35 is supposed to fill, but jesus fucking christ it becomes retarded really fast.

And thats before you look at the logic behind
>anybody who flies this plane and compares it in a positive light is a paid LockMart-MIC shill

vs

>random guy with a phd in macro-economics and blues has a blog about the F-35 in which every brainfart equals TRUUUUTH!!!!

>>32870452
They are competitive in A2A combat

>Hurr durr evidence
See >>32869955, first link

>>32870452
>They're not competitive in air-to-air combat, ergo they're not a jack-of-all-trades, and are basically useless against anything resembling a modern military.
They've already demonstrated overwhelmingly effective A2A capabilities at Red Flag exercises. The pilots themselves are jizzing all over their cockpits. At what point do you actually stop and examine your opinions? At what point do you stop and ask yourself what being a sensor/shooter actually means?

Fucking learn something, anon. Here's someone with thousands of hours in the F-18, F-16, F-22 and now F-35:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0
When he says "speed is life, more is better" is no longer true, that it's "information is life, more is better", well, I think he knows what the fuck he's talking about.

>>32870479
What annoys me the most is the people who say
>the F-22 died for this! we should be cancelling the F-35 and building a gorillion more F-22s
When you just know 15 years ago they would've been calling the F-22 a turkey and that we should just be building and upgrading more F-15Cs.

>>32870463
Nah, he's another incredibly underinformed /pol/tard who's yet to learn the concept that the primacy of his own feelz being challenged by actual real world data is not the end of the world.

File: UscoIUZ.png (498KB, 761x820px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 761x820px

>>32870452

>>32870571
Disregard I had a brain fart
Exposure to war is boring articles can induce lapses in spatial awareness, dizziness, incontinence and autism.

>>32870452
>They're not competitive in air-to-air combat, ergo they're not a jack-of-all-trades, and are basically useless against anything resembling a modern military.
Actual combat pilot in actual F-35 training disagrees, in this case about the aircraft's supposed weak point, WVR BCM:
https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/
>The offensive role feels somewhat different from what I am used to with the F-16. In the F-16, I had to be more patient than in the F-35, before pointing my nose at my opponent to employ weapons; pointing my nose and employing, before being safely established in the control position, would often lead to a role reversal, where the offensive became the defensive part.
>The F-35 provides me as a pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane where I desire. (The F-35 is capable of significantly higher Angle of Attack (AOA) than the F-16. Angle of Attack describes the angle between the longitudinal axis of the plane – where nose is pointing – and where the aircraft is actually heading – the vector). This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16.
>Since I first wrote this post, I have flown additional sorties where I tried an even more aggressive approach to the control position – more aggressive than I thought possible. It worked just fine. The F-35 sticks on like glue, and it is very difficult for the defender to escape.
>To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent.
CONT

>>32870492
Sometimes im impressed that those people manage to get through the Captcha-filter.

>>32870452
>>32870602

>Yet another quality of the F-35 becomes evident in this flight regime; using the rudder pedals I can command the nose of the airplane from side to side. The F-35 reacts quicker to my pedal inputs than the F-16 would at its maximum AOA (the F-16 would actually be out of control at this AOA).
>I would emphasize the term “multirole” after experiencing this jet in many roles, and now also in a dogfight. The F-35 has a real bite! Those in doubt will be surprised when they finally meet this “bomber.”

TLDR: The F-35 does F-16 things (acceleration, sustained turn rate very very well) while also bringing everything that makes the F-18 awesome to the table (extremely high AoA control ability, nose pointing). When you add the HMD, HOBS and DAS/EOTS, that makes it a fucking WVR monster.

>>32870418
And it must be noted that the F-111 was the result of an insane set of requirements and zero build-dev time.

>>32870602
I know you are trying to educate here, but it will always loop back to >>32870479
Keep fighting the tide of stupidity though

Jesus. Just a few quotes from real, experienced people and a few facts and the idiots scatter like cockroaches.

Not only are they too stupid to support their opinions with fact, but they're too cowardly to actually defend their opinions.

Fucking pathetic.

LMAO the F-35 can't even beat modern Flankers

Stealth isn't as big a deal as you Lockmart shills make it out to be. Drain the fucking swamp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjS8j2PWtK4

>>32870753
Called it >>32870516

>>32870753
>Russian hand puppet's opinion on fighters
Discarded.

>>32870773
Maybe it's bait. It's almost too rehearsed.

>>32870753
Modern flankers are trash that can't beat f-16.

>>32870753

>Drain the fucking swamp

Back to >>/pol/

>>32870790
I mean, its either that, or he really is that stupid. And that is just sad, while the trolling is simply irritating

File: P562AoB.jpg (173KB, 1024x905px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1024x905px

Obligatory

>>32869545

i think i've broken Mach 1.1 in a Strike Eagle maybe once. we go super, but not by a lot.

granted we're a really draggy jet.

>>32868442
that crash landing was fucking beautiful

File: lindsanity.jpg (345KB, 1028x778px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1028x778px

>>32859806

>>32873882
Good times.

>>32871283
I think it is interesting to see Trump's critics trying so hard to turn F-35 supporters against him. I wonder what the next angle will be now that they have been BTFO about Trump's tweet.

>>32857229
>F16: cold war, scientists who actually gave a fuck, pride in one's nation
>F35: corruption at every level and reasoning

>>32874330
>I think it is interesting to see Trump's critics trying so hard to turn F-35 supporters against him.
It's not like he hasn't shit on the F-35 multiple times. What really got me about him was how many times he's taken a shit on veterans, especially Vietnam vets and POWs, when he was too chickenshit to fight himself.

>>32874411
Hello CTR, McCain is not a praiseworthy person.

>>32874462

John McCain's conduct as a POW was honorable and exemplified all that is best in our country, and to denigrate his service only shows how shallow you are.

>>32874462
Someday, Junior, you'll understand that disagreeing with someone's politics and position on certain issues and taking a shot at him as a politician, thinker or public servant is one thing. Shitting on a man's honor and that of all Vietnam POWs because you don't like the way he thinks is entirely another. Especially when he was fighting, tortured and nearly died in the very conflict you were too much of a coward to come out from behind daddy's money and fight in.

I don't think much of McCain's positions on a few issues, like the A-10, and I've been thinking it's about time for him to retire for a while now. But saying shit like the following about him is just bullshit:
>"He's not a war hero," Trump said. "He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured."

>>32874562
>Shitting on a man's honor
What did he do to merit it? At any rate, bringing it up to deflect criticism of his policies at this point removes any honor it might have once had for McCain.

File: RadarAquisition.png (76KB, 640x448px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x448px

>>32869255
And how exactly does the MiG-29/35 or Su-27/30 pilot kill something that they can't lock onto?

Unless you are seriously suggesting that the OPFOR pilots can sneak up to an F-35 to engage in WVR IR AAM combat...

Cause doing that against the 360* sphere vision of the F-35 sensors is practically impossible.

>>32874708

he refused to be released preferentially by the North Vietnamese despite near daily torture that has left him with crippling injuries.

John McCain is an honorable man. his military aviation policies are stupid. but none of that takes away from his honor.

>>32873675
The F-35 has many problems,but comparing it to the Rafail is retarded.

>>32870753
The F-35 can shoot down any Flanker before they even detect it.and when they get the Meteor it's game over vatnik

You have a extreme case of butthurt because your stupid "stealth" fighter is crap and won't reach production.

>>32874708
>bitches about CTR, and probably moaned about SJWs before that
>doesn't even understand what honor is how how to have any

Oh, the ironing. This anon is a bigger pussy than any CTR or SJW shill I've ever run across.

>>32863727
They just tacked more jobs onto fighters because there was no opposition.

If you're fighting AQ or ISIS or Houthis you can literally put a B-17 in the sky and bomb the enemy.

The F-35 is supposed to hold air dominance against foes with tech parity.

It won't.

>>32874330
>BTFO about Trumps tweet

>Made up some bullshit about costs and Hornet competition

>>32874359
>I have no argument or evidence, but here's my outlandish claim!

>>32875031

Nobody has tech parity with the US military, so that's not much of an issue.

>>32875031
Someone didn't bother to RTFT before looking like a complete moron on /k/ by posting shit already completely assfucked in this very thread.

/k/ always delivers.

>>32875031
>Opinions with no basis in reality

>>32868387
Get it ready? It's already being deployed....

Lol please show your source that the F-35 is worse at "dogfighting" than those other planes, and define "dogfighting"

>Decades behind F-16 and MiG-29

Ahahahaha

>Muh CAS

Ahahahaha

>Muh load capacity

Lol dude. Come on. It can carry the same payload as an F-16 but on internals only (so stealthy) and with double or triple the combat radius. Or it can carry similar payload on externals to an F-18 but with double the range.

>Actually thinking an F-5 or MiG-21 is superior to the F-35 in any way

Lol you're just trying to hit all the F-35 bingo squares aren't you?

>>32868400
The F-35 unit cost is 85-100 million dollars. That's lower than other 4.5th gen fighters.

>>32869255
>Google around
>Experts

Lol. Like who anon?

>>32875153

Experts like Solomon and Don Bacon.

>>32869494
>Literally repeating Spreys bullshit almost verbatim

Lol this guy isn't serious.

>>32869554
All someone has to do is read GAO reports about the F-16 or F-18. They make the F-35 look immaculate.

>>32870416
Which means that you can scramble F-35s and have them up in the air, at altitude with full combat loads, in less time than an F-16, with stealth, with 2-3x the range/loiter time.

>>32870492
Yeah, and 25 years before the F-22 they were calling the F-15 a turkey that was too big, too expensive, etc.

Same shit has been going on for 50 years in the fighter industry. Retards like Sprey have been shitposting for decades.

>>32870613
The F-35 is basically like playing Ace combat in real life. Plane almost flies on rails and has magical cheating HUD and sensors.

>>32875118
>Or it can carry similar payload on externals to an F-18 but with double the range.
Technically more, as it doesn't need to waste points on fuel and pods.

>>32875186

My favorite thing about the F-18E report is that it recommends cancelling the project in favor of just putting all the money towards the JSF project. So if the GAO were listened to, there would have been no Super Hornet to serve as an interim between the F-18 and F-35 for the Navy. Might have been a disaster.

>>32875302
God, please, no. The last thing we need is any wiff of Ace Combat when discussing aviation procurement.

>>32875305
Honestly the whole thing about the F-35s range and internal fuel payload is what impressed me the most.

Like the combat radius is just insane. Especially compared to short-legged things like the F-16. An f-16 with two bags still doesn't come close. And those two bags destroy it's aerodynamic performance.

File: P-1112_Aigaion.jpg (577KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 1280x720px

>>32875330

>2017
>Not having a flying aircraft carrier shaped like a stingray

>>32875311
Lol it's true.

The thing with GAO reports is that they re designed to be supremely harsh and deeply critical and skeptical. They want to find every little problem and dig at every little flaw. It's basically designed to just shit on the entire project from every angle so they catch everything they need to fix. Then idiots read those reports and think "hurr durr plane bad", forgetting that all planes get bad GAO reports....