Guys help, I'm starting to like the F-35. It flies bett

File: F35_is_gud_plane.jpg (1MB, 1370x3735px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1370x3735px

>people only know about the unclassified details

Join the cool kids club and find out.

>>33005103
Embrace the fact that you aren't an ignorant shitbird anymore.

>>33005103
>official price tag of more than $1 trillion.
And it has only gone up. It is a good jet that we don't need at all.
WHY THE FUCK DO WE NEED VTOL.
>we can put our multi million dollar jet on the front line so it can be hit by a sheepfucker with an rpg while it slowly rises off the pad.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/current-f-35-costs-drop-but-total-costs-go-up/

>>33009433
>official price tag of more than $1 trillion.
Over 50 years. Versus 4 trillion keeping the planes it replaces in service. Idiot.

>It is a good jet that we don't need at all.
Yeah, let's let China and Russia beat us while the current fleet rots away!

>WHY THE FUCK DO WE NEED VTOL.
Because the Marines and the Brits NEED a STOVL plane, and in the US buy it'll only be 360 of the 2443 coming into service.

>we can put our multi million dollar jet on the front line so it can be hit by a sheepfucker with an rpg while it slowly rises off the pad.
If it could happen to Harriers and Helos, which we haven't really seen, sure.

>>33010430
>4 trillion keeping the planes it replaces in service
link?

>>33010959
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/06/27/massive-cost-estimate-for-fighter-program-is-misleading/#6a6874b22452

>can't fly
>can't shoot
>can't CAS
>can't not kill it's own pilots

F35 fags pls go

>>33011151
>>can't fly
Then the F-18, F-16 and AV-8B can't fly either. Because it flies better than any of those.

>can't CAS
The USAF thinks you're a retard. They aren't the only ones.
https://theaviationist.com/2015/07/01/f-35s-role-in-green-flag/
>According to AW&ST the Lightning IIs achieved an important result during GF 15-08: not a single F-35 was “shot down” during the drills, a significant achievement for the JSF at its first active participation in a major exercise, especially considering that A-10s and F-16s were defeated in the same conditions.

>>can't not kill it's own pilots
It hasn't yet killed a single pilot, or lost a single airframe in a crash. Only a single airframe writeoff with an engine fire and two total Class A mishaps in over 8,000 flight hours. No other jet fighter in US defense industry history has gotten to that point without crashing a jet or killing a pilot.

Go on. Tell me more stories.

>>33011249
>8,000
80,000

>>33005103

If you were smart you would have been supporting the F-35 years ago.

>>33011273
doh. right you are. my bad.

That's what I get for drunk posting.

>>33005103
How much do you get for shilling?

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

170KB, 575x350px

>>33011465

>>33011465
Every thirtieth post they let me sit on the pilot's lap and go for a ride around Eglin, it's a pretty nice gig desu I'd highly recommend it.

>>33009433
>WHY THE FUCK DO WE NEED VTOL.
we don't. which is why the f35 is stovl. retard.

>>33011602
I mean people say this but technically it's both, it just depends what it's carrying. Same as the AV-8

New F-35 video from Edwards AFB ITF today; gonna have to make me some more webms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfGuwS2tGPg

>>33011638
Great get.

Was watching one of the linked vids at the end, of the F-35C testing on the Ike, and realized the Ike is CVN-69.

How the fuck is it not world famous for being nicknamed the Dirty Ike, Ikey Likes It, Sixty Ike, etc.? USN, you had one fucking job.

>>33011638
I attended a presentation by a test pilot a couple of weeks ago where he showed a video of a minimum power cat launch where someone fucked up and they almost launched the bird into the ocean. He then said there was a worse fuck up on video somewheres where an F-35C almost slammed into the back of the deck on approach due to rough seas or something of that nature.


Do you have either of those videos? I've looked but haven't been able to find them.

>>33011638
Oh boy those boyband album cover poses

>>33005103
knowing things about complex subjects is the best way to shitpost you fool, you can pick the topics that are both hard to explain away by other knowledgeable people and extremely aggravating to everyone else and capitalize on them

File: 1486389037181.png (672KB, 900x522px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 900x522px

>>33005103
>Guys help, I'm starting to like the F-35. It flies better than I used to think it did and It look new and modern.

This is now considered a 10 year old aircraft that has already been in the last 4 Ace Combat games and Tom Clancy: HAWKS. How the fuck do you not know this?

>>33005103
F-35 is a stealth! STEALTH!

>>33005103
Of course it's good. Jakovlev is the greatest OKB of all time.

>>33009433

>WHY THE FUCK DO WE NEED VTOL

If all the US military needed to do was bomb Abu Hajaar & friends, it wouldn't have a $600 bn a year budget.

Against a real opponent, capable of threatening the USA's super-carriers and big airbases is where the F-35B will show its worth.

>>33012089
Nope, hadn't even heard about the fuck ups (though I am aware that they were exploring the min and max limits of the F-35C during DT-III last year). On the video that you saw, how low are we talking? Did the top of the tails go below the height of the carrier deck?

>>33012793
There was a long and pathetic argument the otehr day about whether or not the F-35 can actually supercruise.

What is your take on this? I know you have previously said it can.

I was under the impression it could accelerate to supersonic using the after burner, then had about 20 minutes of supersonic cruise on dry thrust. Does this count.

Also why I am here, do you know anything about control reversal on the F-16?

>>33012852
>then had about 20 minutes of supersonic cruise on dry thrust
>doubt.jpg

>>33012679
If something can threaten a carrier group an LHD isn't going to do dick

>>33012852
Supercruise by any definition means it sustains supersonic speed without the use of afterburner.

If it needs AB to get there, and doesn't sustain it, kind of obvious if it can or not no?

>>33012852
It's my understanding (although there's some conflicting info out there) that if you get to the right altitude, use afterburner to get to Mach 1.2, then click down to max mil power, you can stay at that speed for 150 miles (about 130NM or 11.5 minutes at Mach 1.2) before the engine starts to overheat.

Regardless, the USAF does not consider Mach 1.2 (even if you were able to sustain it indefinitely) as supercruise. If they did consider it as supercruise, they'd also have to consider jets like the F-15E, which can do a little over Mach 1.1 when it's not carrying CFTs / EFTs and only a light / medium air-to-air payload, as supercruising jets.

Other nations and companies like SAAB consider anything above Mach 1 to be supercruising, but they're not the ones building the F-35. Whether you want to call it supercruising or not is inconsequential unless you're trying to market a jet.

If you're flying an F-22 (the fastest supercruiser today), you're still going to use afterburner to get up to your desired supercruise speed - cruising supersonic rather than subsonic in the F-22 uses as much as 2.5x as much fuel - standard F-22 missions are only meant to have about 100nmi of supercruise for this reason. If they try to supercruise from take-off to landing they'll have a combat radius of only about 250-300NM.

1/2

>>33006853
I remember that thread. The idiot that Dragon is arguing with really went all in on every single meme he could get his hands on.

>>33012852
>Also why I am here, do you know anything about control reversal on the F-16?

This covers it pretty well: neuron.tuke.sk/andoga/SRL/FM_Developers_Notes_Part_4 (2).pdf#page=9

In layman's terms, when an F-16 has its nose pointed high and it goes to roll right for example, it does so (partly) by dropping it's left aileron (aka flaperon) and raising its right aileron.

When it does that, the left aileron is creating more drag than the right one. With more drag on the left than the right, the jet doesn't just want to roll right, it also wants to yaw left.

However, when it tries to yaw left, the rudder moves to cancel out the yaw the jet's computers are detecting. By fighting that left-yaw created by the aileron, the rudder (which remember is positioned above the centre of gravity; the point around which the jet rotates) ends up creating left-roll (opposite to the direction we want) as well as right-yaw.

Sensing that the jet isn't rolling fast enough, the ailerons will deflect more, adding even more drag on the left wing, causing the rudder to respond more, feeding a vicious cycle.

Why does the rudder have more power than two ailerons?

The answer is simply that at higher angles of attack (eg 20 degrees for the F-16), the ailerons drag is accentuated and the rudder's ability to control yaw is reduced, so the rudder has to deflect more.

To fix it, they just do things like make the right aileron deflect more than the left aileron during a right roll, as well as do things like use the elevons to help roll the jet (being anhedral, they're more likely to also produce a tiny bit of right yaw (which is what we want) when rolling right).

>>33011638
>upside-down gunning at 06:31
Living the dream

File: da.jpg (2KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x125px

>>33013108
>>33013062
not him, but thanks for the info, good read
you're alright for a tripfag

>>33005103
F-35 shitposting is reaching a new level.
Soon the threads'll be about how good it is.

>>33013249

Bullshit, F-35 threads have been on the way up for a long while. Only taking a small dip when the President wanted to 'cut' the price.

>>33006853
WTF I like f35 now

>>33012993

Nope, but as part of an overall force, more platforms putting up CAPs helps support the more precious carriers.

Besides, during the Cold War, the most important reason for the Harrier's existence was not to operate from small carriers / amphibious ships, but as a strike platform that could be dispersed to mitigate a Warsaw Pact strike (conventional or otherwise) against all front-line NATO airbases in Europe. To this day, the most dangerous of the USA's potential enemies have extensive stockpiles of SRBMs and MRBMs potentially capable of this.

>>33005103

The only ones left that shit post the F-35 are the ignorant, and scared chicoms/vatniks.

You are actually learning and changing your point of view, so you are the former group.

>>33012993
>>33013533

Also imagine going from having those LHD's only able to provide harriers to the combat space, and now they can launch a 5th Gen fighter with 90% the capability of the carrier and land based model. It's a huge force multiplier to turn any LHD into a credible air threat.

I want to know if the F-35 can outmaneuver a Russian plane.

>>33014605
Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: but won't really need to, because it can detect it at much further distances and at all angles and guide an AIM-120D into NEZ range with LPI datalink.

>>33014584
>5th Gen fighter with 90% the capability of the carrier and land based model

>2/3rds the fuel and significantly reduced payload by design

"90% of the capability"

>>33014809
It can't carry 2000 pounders and is meant to deploy from far closer to the front. i.e. your points are non-issues.

>>33014829
So a strike aircraft can't carry a very common air to ground munition, and you actually admit it doesn't have the capability - it just doesn't "need" it.

gg you played urself

can't wait for those Wasp class to get into AShM range because who the fuck cares about combat radius, its a non-issue lel

>>33014924
You do know that SDBs are likely to be its primary payload, not the relatively rarely used 2k bombs, right?

And again, there's only going to be 360 US Bs, so I don't get this masturbatory "hurr F-35B makes all F-35s bad" bullshit.

File: F-35 weapons.jpg (462KB, 847x634px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 847x634px

>>33014924
>So a strike aircraft can't carry a very common air to ground munition

Harrier cant carry 2k pounders at all, F-35B can, just not internally.

Harriers have a combat radius of 300 nmi, with bags.

F-35B has a combat radius of 470nmi on internal fuel.

>>33012793
The entire aircraft disappeared below the front of the deck, they were incredibly close to losing an airframe. At first I thought I had just seen an airframe loss that was covered up or something.

It looked like this, maybe worse: https://youtu.be/r-EHwYOfY94

File: dragon dildos.png (32KB, 290x300px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 290x300px

>>33006853
>Dragon029
Literal paid Lockmart shill.

>>33014944
That's scary-neat; was this a closed presentation on a base (if so, would you be willing to say which one, PAX?), or something like a public meet & greet event? If it's the latter I'll have to try and hunt down a video.

>>33015043
*Google shill

>>33014944
>so I don't get this masturbatory "hurr F-35B makes all F-35s bad" bullshit.

Never said that

>>33014994
Never said it wasn't an improvement over the F-35B either

these threads are great

>>33015126

So you are being overly autistic about 90%?

>>33015126
Yet you laser-focus on the B and it's slightly reduced, but still mission acceptable capabilities as if they make the entire program garbage.

>>33015161
Hardest projection I've ever seen

>>33015159
Say stupid shit and expect it to get shitposted to hell and back, welcome to 4chan.

Next time maybe don't use such a shill-sounding line that reeks of falsehood

>>33015196

Ok, prove it has less of 90% of the performance of the other variants. Make sure you include radar, avionics, elint, ewar, passives, and stealth in your metrics.

>>33015061
Public presentation for the campus aviation club, I saw a flyer that a TPS graduate with experience in all F-35 variants would be there talking about his experiences so I checked it out.

https://youtu.be/9y3G4Sk1Hcw
It was pretty much this presentation but slightly updated, unfortunately this video doesn't include the two clips that I'm referring to.

>>33015230
Ok

The F-35B's radar, avionics, elint, ewar, """"passives"""", and stealth are attached to an airframe that has significantly lower kinematic performance, ~73% of the combat radius, can't fit SDBs until a future upgrade comes out, and is operated by Marines

>>33012679
>Bomb Abu hajaar & friends

Why is that so funny

>>33015396
>airframe that has significantly lower kinematic performance
There's no evidence of that.

>>33015396
>can't fit SDBs until a future upgrade comes out
That's a misconception - the F-35B (with Block 3F) will carry SDB-1's, just like the other 2 variants. They found issues with fitting SDB-II's, but it was never planned for Block 3F and the only jet in the world that can use them today is the F-15E. The only mods required to fit the SDB-II are the moving of a hydraulic line and a wiring bracket in each bay. That's expected to happen with Block 4.1.

>>33015396

So out of 8 metrics, its achieves 100% of 6 of them, 73% of one of them, and due to not having one weapon out of 13, 93% out of the last metric.

You objectively showed that the F-35B retains 95% of the performance of the other variants.

>>33015441
>There's no evidence of that.
The fact that its significantly heavier with the same engine and has a lowered sustained G requirement would suggest otherwise

>>33015396

>can't fit SDBs until a future upgrade comes ou

The SDB itself isn't going to be ready until 2022, so I'm not sure why not being able to use SDB's until then is worthy of note.

>>33015459
>Its okay if it never gets there because the target is 100nmi further out, its got the same RCS!

File: Differences.png (23KB, 715x431px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 715x431px

>>33015465

The F-35B has almost the exact same max T/W as the F-35A, which is absolutely phenomenal compared to what the AV-8B was capable of.

>>33015474

Dont get upset with me buddy, its your method i mathed out.

>>33015512
>its your method i mathed out.

Uh, no

I never used the "90% as capable" originally, so why would it be my method?

>>33015508
Great!

Notice I've never compared it to the Harrier a single time yet I've had the fact that the F-35B is better than it thrown in my face twice now?

It is a little pathetic, honestly.

File: F-35 Thrust to Weight.png (175KB, 3767x2019px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 3767x2019px

>>33015508
Here's a graph of T:W of each variant going from 100% fuel to 0% fuel (noting that no jet is going to dogfight until it has zero fuel):

>>33015524

>Notice I've never compared it to the Harrier a single time

That's a problem then, because that's the most logical comparison to make. The F-35B has far superior range and speed compared to the Harrier that it is replacing.

>>33015543
>The F-35B has far superior range and speed compared to the Harrier that it is replacing.

GREAT

Shame that we're not at all having that conversation isn't it, anon?

Maybe stop talking to yourself?

>>33015524
>I never used the "90% as capable" originally, so why would it be my method?

You took umbrance to that anons 90% capable claim.

I asked you to prove that its not. You indeed proved, objectively and mathematically, the F-35B indeed retains 5% more than that anons claim.

>>33015557

Yeah, it is great isn't it? The idea of making a STOVL fighter jet with nearly identical performance to a CTOL jet is something that would have been considered a ridiculous fantasy 20 years ago, but somehow they did it. It dramatically increases the utility of every flat-deck amphibious ship in the fleet.

>>33015591
>You indeed proved, objectively and mathematically, the F-35B indeed retains 5% more than that anons claim.

If you weigh every metric with the same relevance, which is stupid.

>>33015602
>If you weigh every metric with the same relevance, which is stupid.

Your right, avionics, radar, EW, stealth is clearly more important than pure kinematics.

Shall i account for that?

>>33015597
It will do wonders for USA's force projection.

One of the reason I've recently changed my mind on the F-35.

>>33015617
Should probably account range as a significant factor for naval assets, yes

arguably one of the most important, which the navy seems to agree on with the whole "F-35C needs to have extra range" dealio

>>33015474
That target is for the F-35C, there's plenty of targets within 450nm of where a LHA/LHD is.

Alternatively drop tank, which can be made semi-stealthy.

>>33015641
>arguably one of the most important, which the navy seems to agree on with the whole "F-35C needs to have extra range" dealio
It's already got a massive range advantage over Hornets, and if they really want to they can thrown the external tanks on the inboard pylons when those come into service.

>>33015641

Sweet.

Lets weigh avionics, tech, and stealth, etc as 2x, range as 6x weight, and weapons as 1x (due to external anyways)

Well well, looky there.

91.1% as effective.

>>33015682
cool pseudoscience bruddah

>>33015689

You are the one who wanted me to weigh range significantly.

I would say 3x more than stealth, avionics, etc, 6x more than lesser metrics is very generous.

Im just going off of your metrics man, again, dont blame me.

>>33015689
>anon made a fairly general claim in order to demonstrate that the F-35B takes no major losses in capability compared to the A and C
>he uses random %90 number because it seems about right
>"Nuh uh!"
>he backs up his claims with math
>"Nuh uh!"

Either refute his argument or fuck of you nigger

>>33015724

Best part is im not even that guy who originally claimed the 90%, i just hate pusdo autistic faggots.

>>33015724
Of course autists don't understand that some people like/prefer percentages when estimating certainty.

Does anybody else really like this guy's videos?

https://youtu.be/P-M9jA1INk8
https://youtu.be/xjS8j2PWtK4

>>33015908
No.

>>33005103
F-35B is still pretty garbage. lulcore aviation baka

>>33015908
I dislike them. He pulls numbers out his ass and presents them as the unequivocal truth.

>>33017097
I think it's more that some of his number are older or theoretical, and less with confirmed numbers.

>>33017795
No, he pulls numbers flat out of his ass. I've seen this across many videos of his. He uses a number, and makes the blind assertion that it is true.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/air-force-f-35s-first-foreign-deployment-to-pacific-not-europe/

>Bogdan also said he’s in the “throes” of negotiations with Lockheed Martin about Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 11 of the F-35. The 120-airplane lot will be worth upwards of $11 billion should work out to $80 million to $85 million a plane for the F-35A.

>$80 to $85 million
>That was Lockmart's Full Rate Production price target

They're pushing price hard in this administration.

>>33015440
Do you not know the legend of Abu Hajaar?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jPTrS-7d14

>>33018103
That number does not include the engine. The engines are bought in lots separately from PW. The airframe cost from LM needs to get down to about 73 or so million to get the entire bird under 85 million.

That's one thing to look out for when reading these stories - they often have so little idea of what they're reporting that they don't even know to note whether or no the engine is included.

>inb4 blasted for anti-f-35 faggotry
I'm behind it 100%, and I do believe they'll get the total per unit price at or damn close to that 85m mark by 2020. I just believe it's important to be accurate about these things when there's already so much disinfo out there.

>>33018166
>That number does not include the engine. The engines are bought in lots separately from PW. The airframe cost from LM needs to get down to about 73 or so million to get the entire bird under 85 million.

That's a good catch.

Going by the July Press release for United Technologies and their tenth LRIP F135 contract, the price was reduced a further 2.6%, which would put the price at $12.95 million per engine.

http://www.utc.com/News/PW/Pages/F-35-Joint-Program-Office-Awards-Pratt-Whitney-LRIP-10-Contract-for-F135-Engine.aspx

>>33015020
>that video
How quickly can they replace those cables?

Imagine being the pilot, managing to pull back up in time but not having enough fuel left to wait for the next cable.

>>33019268
They don't have to replace them immediately when something like that happens, you just come back around and use one of the other 3 wires.

>>33019268
Pretty sure they usually have a tanker on station.

>>33019363
>>33019363

I'm curious.....do you have an opinion on the LCS & Zumwalt or are you strictly a plane guy?

>>33019428
Mostly only a plane guy, but I think the downsizing / death spiral of the Zumwalt fleet was a missed opportunity; the LCS is a more complex matter that I haven't read enough on to properly judge.

>>33019554
How do you respond to accusations that the Zumwalt was the ugliest ship ever, making the USN look like it had down syndrome?

>>33019572
Well, it looks like your mom, so yes.

>>33019554

I feel the same about the Zum Zum. The LCS is the ship that I feel is harder to explain. My personnel opinion is that it is just a glorified patrol boat that as pitched as something weird and special because congress refuses to fund boring but necessary projects like patrol craft and minesweepers, so the Navy came up with some patrol/frigate/minesweeper/thing to get funding to fill those roles. It would be great if you could develop a more informed opinion on the subject though.....

>>33019572
>babbies first loaded question

>>33019572
I can see how the relatively low bridge makes it look like it has a low brow, but overall I still think - the Zumwalt looks awesome, like a Star Destroyer or some death pyramid.

>>33019631
In regards to the LCS, that's what I get too; I think it'll be better off when they get LRASM or NSM.

>>33020021
>I can see how the relatively low bridge makes it look like it has a low brow,
Yeah, that's what I mean. It's not very aesthetic.

>>33020083
Generally, when I notice the bridge I just see it is as the visor of a knight's helmet

>>33019642
Nonsense. Anyone in the military can tell you the only thing that really matters is if you look cool, operational effectiveness is a secondary concern.

>>33020189

And another thing.....are you happy that Gilmore is finally gone?

>>33020274
Depends who his replacement is I think; Gilmore arguably had an overall positive effect on the program, but he certainly was annoying; like a parent or partner that nags you to do some chore out of habit, even if you already done it.

I found the people who unironically dislike the F-35 are either:
>Neo-/v/ contrarian shitposters
>Aviation Fudds

The later group would probably be the same guys bitching in the late 70s-early 80s about why the F-4 is being replaced too.

>>33011638
MUH DICK, DRAGON!

>>33020268
Thank you for reaffirming you asked a loaded question.

>>33019631
>My personnel opinion is that it is just a glorified patrol boat that as pitched as something weird and special because congress refuses to fund boring but necessary projects like patrol craft and minesweepers, so the Navy came up with some patrol/frigate/minesweeper/thing to get funding to fill those roles.

Basically OHP replacements with the ability to be configured for minesweeping.

>>33021063

The weirdest and most controversial aspect of the LCS is the 45 knot speed requirement. It's what makes them so damn expensive and fragile. The best way to fix the LCS would be to simply reduce the top speed to 35 - 38 knots, on par with a WW2 destroyer. Then you'd still have a pretty fast ship but at a more manageable cost and a sturdier construction.

>>33021063
This. Congress doesn't want to fund MCM. MCM isn't sexy. MCM doesn't have giant flying Freudian facefuckers to take pictures in front of. But we really need that goddamn MCM with the Avenger class going away. Similarly, ASW isn't all that sexy but we need as much of that as we can get our hands on. So the backdoored it (hurr hurr) in a do-everything super secret stealth ship with littoral derring-do. Then they pretty much concentrated on getting the ASW and MCM variants up and working and laughed at congress.

>>33021119
They probably are a bit faster than they need to be. However, all that speed comes in damn hand when screening a carrier in transit or during flight ops for ASW using sprint and drift.

>>33021119
45 knot speed is a torpedo defense, which is kind of important when one of it's main uses will be ASW

>>33005103
too expensive to justify the cost as a nonstatist pos

>>33021229

The F-35 program costs nearly the exact same percentage of GDP as the F-16 program did.

>>33021311
and?

>>33021318

It's an interesting fact.

>>33021318
You are neither intelligent enough or knowledgeable enough to partake in this discussion.

>>33013062
So, in a practical sense, F-35 can supercruise for the same distance as F-22, due to fuel constraints, but at M1.2 instead of M1.6.

File: 1401157501744.jpg (46KB, 691x624px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 691x624px

>>33005103
>>33012964

My favorite posts (on other websites) are ones calling for the Gerald Ford to be cancelled. Oh really? You're just going to "cancel" a $10 billion dollar ship that has already been constructed?

>>33021483
Already constructed, about to start builder's trials, and due to be delivered to the Navy at the end of this year, at that. Sounds like the kind of FUD spilled by foreign nationals hoping to somehow sway public opinion away from new American weapons systems.

>>33019631
Armchair admiral here, I've been following both programs since their original conception.

This isn't the right place for a long-winded rant, so I'll summarize: there were major disagreements within the Navy over what the next generation of warships (SC-21) should look like and how they should work, and a combination of budget issues, strategic shortsightedness, magical thinking by senior officers and civilians, and poor choices by the contractors pretty much ruined everything.

Carrier and sub programs were off in their own world this whole time, so their issues (and successes!) are completely independent of this mess.

In the end, ZumZum will at least test out the all-electric ship, albeit at great expense. That will probably be its greatest contribution, with the results going on to see service with whatever the next-gen major surface combatant hull winds up being (right now, we don't really have one, other than a stretched Burke or a sped-up LPD).

LCS is a dumpster fire, though; the earliest ships may be retired from wear and poor maintenance before some of the mission modules are finalized.

For more info, check out sites like USNI's blog, or the archives at Cdr Salamander or Information Dissemination (which is alive again!).

>>33021119
Armchair admiral again. This, pretty much.

A more-conventional frigate hull would have cost more up front than LCS promised, but it would have been far cheaper in the long run, and far sturdier. It never made sense that the ship itself had to do 50kts+ when it could carry small craft for VBSS that could reach those speeds, or helos/UAVs that could far exceed them. Same thing with the draft; if you're chasing drug or gun smugglers, hang some CB-90s on davits, or shoot their engines out from the helo.

In a way, LCS embodies most of the worst aspersions that are cast towards F-35, particularly in regards to concurrency (imagine designing the airframe without knowing how big or heavy the radar would be, and you get a glimpse into the mission module issue) and contractor/designer over-promising.

>>33022009
You're forgetting that it's the Current Year which means that steel and water have gotten better since WWII so that means our ships should be faster too without needing to make any design compromises.

>>33022027

If you want to make something go fast there are always compromises associated with that, no matter what year it is. And in my humble opinion, the LCS are simply too fast for their own good. A fast ship is a good idea, but 45 knots is just way above what is necessary. WW2-era destroyers were 35-38 knots at top speed and still managed to be pretty durable, relatively speaking. The best way to fix the LCS would be to simply scale back the speed requirements in favor of lower cost and better durability.

>>33006853
It should be pointed out that most of what he says is out of context or a lie. Like how he says the f35 has huge range when the f-35b has only 900km of range.

>>33021905
>Information Dissemination (which is alive again!).
Really? Fucking baller, mate.

>>33021324
What if it's a lie?

>>33005103
It's decent plane, but whomever thought it was a good idea to mash 8(?) different programs together was an idiot. Also, the termination of the f-22 program may force it to do things it really isn't supposed to

>>33022404
>Parroting tired memes

>>33022009
IIRC the 45 knot requirement had to do with survivability against SSKs. Russian torpedoes have a top speed of 50 knots, so if an LCS picks up a torp while doing ASW work, it simply opens up the throttle and runs. The torp will run out of fuel before it can close the gap.

>>33022469
>implying many of the problems with the JSF's development weren't tied to its supplanting several other programs
It was going to be a little rocky no matter what

>>33022573
Except from the very beginning the goal and task was to try to reduce overall costs and efforts by consolidating into a single joint fighter.

>>33022592
Which presented its own set of tradeoffs and challenges, like leaving the navy without its own dedicated VLO air superiority fighter and effort spent refocusing development of and colsolidating resources for new aircraft

>>33021905
>LCS is a dumpster fire

I think in the end the ships will be fine.

They had a bad run of concurrency mixed with FIC problems doubled, along with some bad issues with their engines/hydrogearing.

conceptually it was a mess, but the evolution is just fine. (LCS being a common hull for various specific ships rather than a modular one)

>>33022665
NATF was cancelled 5 years before the JSF program started.

>>33022196
Yeah, I just found out by accident a few days ago. Apparently it started back up almost a month ago now.

I had missed having the opportunity to tell the friggin' Undersecretary of the Navy that he was Wrong On The Internet(tm).

>>33022895
I was just looking at it a month ago and the site was fucking locked, mate. As in, it required a password to go into. Apparently it lived again right after that. Guess I was just a bit unlucky with my timing!

>>33022527
Actually, no, the 50kt thing was for the surface mission, not the ASW mission. For ASW, LCS was supposed to stay far away and let its deployables (particularly the helo) do all the work. The tail was added when the initial ASW module started looking shaky.

Now, explain to me how a 3-4k-ton warship is supposed to chase down a go-fast and perform VBSS directly? And without that requirement, what do you need the 50kts for? It's not like you can safely do that in littoral waters to begin with; too many shallows, even for that planing hull.

>>33022906
I know, I was checking every couple of months or so. I had about given up on it for good.

>>33022919
>For ASW, LCS was supposed to stay far away and let its deployables (particularly the helo) do all the work.

Nah. It was to have a usv do the work with the helo, which puts it much closer.

As for safety, yeah, you generally don't go 50 knts in littoral because going that fast is dangerous to other ships and hitting shallows would suck, but, if you got a top bearing down on you turn tail and gun it, regardless of what you are piloting.

>>33022176
Is this the autist who got BTFO trying to damage control?

>>33022919
>It's not like you can safely do that in littoral waters to begin with; too many shallows, even for that planing hull.
Give the hull some air cushions, now you have the Skjold-class Corvette and can spend your days at 60 knots pissing of people in canoes.

The US actually borrowed one of them when researching the req's for the LCS. Sorry, not sorry

>>33023045
Sure looks that way

>>33022939
littoral doesn't mean in sight of the shore

>>33023085
No, it can mean in sight of shore to in the middle of an island chain to surrounded by reefs.

>>33023045
He never got BTFO. In fact he showed a lot of people just how bad the f-35 is by comparing it to the j-20, j-31 and t-50.

File: 1480488742532.png (123KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 500x334px

>>33005103
The future is here and it's all kinds of fucked

>>33023278
kek

>>33022176

>says the f35 has huge range

It does compared to what it is replacing, compare the combat radius of the; AV-8B, F/A-18 and F/A-18E with the F-35C and F-35B. Just on internal fuel the comparison is impressive. Add in the possibility of future drop tanks and V-22 refuelling to extend that range, and it should do fine.

>only 900km of range.

You are confusing units, a nautical mile is 1.852 km. That is not far off double the range you are claiming.

>>33023505
Whatever. He also said the j-20 can't supercruise. Bullshit. That thing is build for speed.

>>33023769
A large part of supercruise is having engines capable of it.

Chinese engine technology is a joke.

>>33023813
Famous last words, round-eye.

>>33023853
For the Chinaman who gets hit by his wingman after being forced to eject by his shitty engines failing, sure.

>>33023769

The J-20 can't super-cruise at the moment, that is a fact, and so he is right. It probably will in the future when the WS-15 is matured, and produced in numbers, but that isn't now or in the next couple of years. F-35 fans might as well claim that the mid 2020s F-35 engine upgrade will deliver super-cruise thanks to a planned thrust and efficiency increase.