F-35 General

File: 1370404567945.jpg (62KB, 450x557px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 450x557px

People get a kick out of pretending to be retarded in front of strangers on the internet. Nothing you can do about it but trhow facts at them 'till they leave.

>>33012973
>till they leave
But they dont...they just ignore you and keep posting

>>33013540
Then they are shills and we spend the thread pointing and laughing at them.

Can we have them yet? Please.

t. Australia

>>33012964
>oh yeah OP?
>stay W0Ke
http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/02/f35-delays-sentience/

>>33013607
And now I'm wondering if that porn artist has done the F-35 yet.

>>33013587
AU-1 and AU-2 (the RAAF's first 2 F-35As) will be at the Avalon Air Show in about a fortnight. The current program doesn't show them doing a flying display though; they'll probably just be static on the flightline.

Otherwise, they'll be coming back in (IIRC) March 2018 to permanently live in Williamtown. Another 6 or so will then come in 2020 and then we'll be getting around 20 a year until the last of the 72 ordered arrive in 2023.

>>33013710
>. Another 6 or so will then come in 2020 and then we'll be getting around 20 a year until the last of the 72 ordered arrive in 2023
> will then come in 2020 and then we'll be getting around 20 a year until the last of the 72
> then we'll be getting
> we'll

DRAGON AUSSIES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SHITPOSTERS.

My.....life views......

Don't know how long this stream has been running, but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVHgiZifEts

How do they do against top-of-the-line Russian jets?

>>33013775
US/EU 4/4.5s can beat them most of the time.

>>33013710
>we'll

Wait. You're Australian?

>>33013793
It would explain how he manages to stand all the shitposters in /k
Instead of getting agressive, he just steps outside and punches a Koala or something

>>33012964
>respectable for any combat aircraft.
yeah cause they're brand new

>>33013710
>geelong
unless the air show involves the F-35s bombing geelong, i'm not stepping foot in that shit hole

>>33013731
>>33013793
after you shitpost for so long you start getting desensitized to the shitposting, he probably takes off his trip and shitposts in other threads

who knows, maybe he's collecting large amounts of completely accurate information, then creating posts with that accurate information AND complete bullshit, then playing it off as all true. maybe he's playing 20 dimensional two-up

>>33013637
Doesn't seem that he has.

File: BodyRock.png (314KB, 710x473px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 710x473px

>>33013710
>they're going to have a B-1B on static display
...maybe if i can just avoid talking to anyone from geelong...

Gun still doesn't work. Helmet lacks the ability transfer from daytime to nighttime because they can't fit both visors in the cockpit.

>>33014321
>Gun still doesn't work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Nv3FIHNK0

>Helmet lacks the ability transfer from daytime to nighttime because they can't fit both visors in the cockpit.

Retarded.

File: They were supposed to be 100% common.png (463KB, 1135x537px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 1135x537px

Should we have just made 3 different jets? Or maybe we should we have abandoned the commonality quest after it became obvious that all the variants were getting gimped by each other?

Some say it would have been cheaper, too.

>>33014321
On the helmet, you should be aware that only one visor is the norm; for every other US fighter, you have a sun visor, or you have no visor.

Also, if you want to see at night with a 4th gen fighter, you have to spend about 5 minutes prior to getting in your jet in order to set it up for that flight, and then about a minute while in-flight, attaching and adjusting it. If you have to eject, there's even an increased chance the NVGs will rip the helmet off your head.

>>33014375
They essentially are different jets that just share a common F-22 ancestor and have shared mission systems and engine. Ultimately, around 70% of the jet's parts in terms of cost are still shared.

>>33014375
>Should we have just made 3 different jets?

Yes, lets just make 3 times the cost.

> Or maybe we should we have abandoned the commonality quest after it became obvious that all the variants were getting gimped by each other?

Stupid. No variant is gimped by the other.

>they were supposed to be 100% common.png

Absolutely disgraceful.

>>33014333
It's not retarded. it was literally in the report thingy.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/dod/2016f35jsf.pdf

>Part of the weight reduction to the Gen III Lite HMDS
involved removing one of the two installed visors (one
dark, one clear). As a result, pilots that will need to use
both visors during a mission (e.g., during transitions from
daytime to nighttime) will have to store the second visor in
the cockpit. However, there currently is not enough storage
space in the cockpit for the spare visor

IT'S FUCKED.

>>33014375
>they were supposed to be 100% common

lol

>>33014397
No, its retarded that you think that sun visors dont exist in modern jets. See >>33014391

You sir, are the fucked one.

>>33014375

The biggest issues in the program have been related to software, not hardware.

>all the variants were getting gimped by each other?

There really isn't any evidence of this. Each variant is different enough to be what it needs to be while still sharing a significant amount of commonality.

>>33014392
>Yes, lets just make 3 times the cost.

It would have been cheaper, actually. Every time there was a problem with one jet, it meant there was a problem with all of them. It caused several delays and costly redesigns.The f-35b in particular was the problem child. It caused changes to shape and weapon bay size that the other variants were forced to adopt.

>>33014407
At least those jets have space for their visors.

>>33014439
>It would have been cheaper, actually.

No.

> Every time there was a problem with one jet, it meant there was a problem with all of them.

Oh yes, totally comparable to spending the time to design 3 different designs, build 3 different factory's, 3 different toolings, train 3 different workforces, 3 different supply chains.

Get out.

> It caused changes to shape and weapon bay size that the other variants were forced to adopt.

Except the F-35B's weapon bay is different from the C's and A.

You are a problem child. Unfuck yourself.

>>33014439
>It would have been cheaper, actually.
It would have been cheaper to have three separate dev programs, even though the F-35 has come in at less than the F-22's?

It would have been cheaper to have three different companies all running their own production lines?

I think you're a bit retarded, anon.

File: Are you seirous.gif (891KB, 325x252px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 325x252px

>>33014450

>>33014391
where in australia do you live mate? if you're close i wouldn't mind having a beer with you and f-35posting

>>33014478
Genuine thanks for the offer, but sharing my location is a risky thing

>>33014409
Your denial of the mistakes of the f-35 development process really shows how the plane is getting shilled here.

>>33014463
Sorry, but a RAND study found that during development, the three different versions had drifted so far apart from each other, that having a single base design might have come to be more expensive than if the three services had simply built entirely different aircraft, each tailored to their own requirements. The program should have simply allowed the planes to keep drifting and become separate entities.

>>33014470
It already is 3 seperate dev programs.

>>33014532
alright mate.

question though: this post here >>33014397 points out that you can't have both the dark and the clear visor in the cockpit at the same time... why does that matter? why can't you, for example, use the clear visor for night then just put on a pair of sunglasses once the sun rises? is there a reason there has to be two separate types of visors?

>>33014535
You have yet to lay out exactly how dividing it into three different programs, especially split between three companies, could produce cheaper results.

>>33014545
Not really, no. Except for differentiation elements they're all built on the same production line, run the same software, and are all built off the A's design base.

>>33014535
>RAND said something

Oh boy, the same RAND, in the study you are referencing, is already wrong about the F-35 "not on path to achiving milestone B cost savings"....when it turned out it has?

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1225.html

Keep on reading 4 year old data. Im sure its relevant.

>>33014535

>unironically believes the shill meme
If you were on /v/ you might have a leg to stand this claim on but the idea of a defense contractor spending actual fucking money on shills for 4 C H A N is more absurd than a fucking Korobov.

>>33014593
>they used the F-22 lifetime cost as a reference for the F-35 lifetime costs

Jesus fucking Christ. Do they not understand that the per plane cost of the F-22 is fuckhuge due to a very short run?

>>33014593

I love RAND. They wrote an interesting article about China's efforts to destroy a US aircraft carrier.

I'm not sure they still have it up though. They wrote it many years ago.

>>33014581
The whole reason the f-35 development process was so delayed and over budget was because LockMart kept building planes and then realizing they were wrong. Having 3 different variants meant 3 times the redesigns, 3 times the new production lines, 3 times the testing. When combined with the increased cost of restarting so many times, it adds up to the same cost as having 3 different planes, with the added kick in pants that those 3 different planes would probably have each been better at their individual roles.

>>33014655
>Having 3 different variants meant 3 times the redesigns, 3 times the new production lines, 3 times the testing.

There is only one production line for all 3 variants. (well 2 now, for FRP)

Please be more informed before posting. It destroys your point when you are this stupid :3

>>33014554
Sunglasses wouldn't be ideal (they'd come loose at high-G, etc, they might also mess with how the helmet display appears to your eyes). Normally, helmets only have a sun visor; at night, you don't have any visor, or you're using NVGs.

With the F-35, because there's no HUD in the cockpit, the pilot has to have a clear visor down during night so that the projectors in the helmet can bounce the image into the pilot's eyes. The pilot can flip up the clear visor if he wants to scratch his face or whatever, but no visor = no HUD.

>>33014655
Uh, no. That's completely wrong.

A: The original budget/timeline was set before X-plane trials concluded, and was based on hopes, dreams, and unicorn farts.
B: Because they decided after starting early F-35 production to mature several technologies with it all at once.

It has been perfectly on schedule once they realigned planning with reality. It had nothing to do with a variant that literally just replaces fuel space with a lift fan, or one with reinforcement for CATOBAR ops.

>>33014688
...isn't that a HUGE problem then? is it impossible to use clear visors at day and dark visors at night, or is this just a case of user comfort being put to the side?

File: F-35 Dutch Pilot Gear + HMDS.jpg (432KB, 1834x1180px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 1834x1180px

>>33014746
It appears to me that the current Gen III has separate display and sun visors, so I'm not seeing how this is an issue.

>>33014695
It's more than 8 years behind schedule. The delays have resulted in China and Russia being allowed far too much time to catch up. The delays and cost overruns were so bad, the project was considered for termination. It lives on only because it's too big to fail.

>>33014804
>It's more than 8 years behind schedule.

Do you think it is not in IOC or something?

>The delays have resulted in China and Russia being allowed far too much time to catch up.

Wew. A gen 4.5 from russia and an attack plane from china. They sure used that time wisely.

>The delays and cost overruns were so bad, the project was considered for termination.

No.

>. It lives on only because it's too big to fail.

Nope.

>>33014804
>It's more than 8 years behind schedule
>A: The original budget/timeline was set before X-plane trials concluded, and was based on hopes, dreams, and unicorn farts.
Stop crying.

>The delays have resulted in China and Russia being allowed far too much time to catch up.
Yeah, no they haven't.

>The delays and cost overruns were so bad, the project was considered for termination. It lives on only because it's too big to fail.
I see you are a student of the Pierre Sprey school of procurement.

>>33014848
>Yeah, no they haven't

They have. It's why the DoD is looking into restarting the F-22.

File: 1487243020975.png (87KB, 274x278px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 274x278px

>>33015025

>It's why the DoD is looking into restarting the F-22.

doubt.jpg

>>33014746
I'm not sure if it's impossible (you can definitely use the tinted visor at night if you're not concerned about spotting dark-on-dark things in your peripheral), but it's not ideal. Either way though, it's nowhere near a huge problem:

Today, if you're flying in an F-16, F/A-18, F-22, etc during dusk, you have to stop what you're doing, put the plane in autopilot, pull out your NVGs, attach them, align them, etc. That process takes about a full minute on average.

On long missions, you also have to periodically take them off to replace the batteries in them, before putting them back on, aligning them, etc like before.

On the F-35, with the new helmet, if you're flying during dusk, you have to stop what you're doing, put the plane in autopilot, pull out your spare visor, clip it into place and then you're done. Nobody's done it in flight yet; they're still working out a specific spot to store the second visor (eg, a pouch glued somewhere by your legs or something), but there's fewer steps involved and nothing to adjust, so it'll be fairly quick. The helmet also is powered by the jet, so there's no batteries involved.

Furthermore, if you're using the day visor, you can always still just rely on night vision camera or DAS video footage to see through the darkness of that visor.

>>33014799
The latest helmet is known as the "Gen III Lite" (yes, with light being spelt that stupid way). It looks almost identical to the Gen III, just without the second visor; they're either not yet in operational use, or only in very limited numbers at this point though, so there's either no or very few images out there.

>>33014804
It's 5-8 years behind schedule; Block 3F was planned for 2012 and is planned for late this year, USMC IOC was planned for 2010, but happened in 2015.

>>33012964
Career maintainer here. Stats can be anything leadership want them to be. The real test will be service over time after the initial fuss is over.

It's easy to "chase stats". Sometimes units are verbally directed to NOT chase stats and report everything in extra detail to help the quest for Operations and Maintenance funding.

>>33015025
>They have. It's why the DoD is looking into restarting the F-22.
Wat
Source?

>>33015031
>The helmet also is powered by the jet, so there's no batteries involved.
how's that work when the pilot needs to eject, then? is the helmet connected to the jet via an interface in the seat, or is a cable just going to be ripped off?

>Nobody's done it in flight yet; they're still working out a specific spot to store the second visor (eg, a pouch glued somewhere by your legs or something)
...just how cramped is the F-35's cockpit? can they not find a spot to cram it next to the manuals or something?

>>33015107
Congress has asked for yet another "feasibility study" on restarting last year, but it's probably going to be the exact same results as several times before.

>>33015171
Congress just likes investigating and studying everything they can to look like they actually do something, just as long as it's not their own party.

>>33015171
>HASC
>DoD
kys

>>33012964

All F-35 haters on suicide watch.

>>33013775

Russian jets are hot garbage. The internet has created a myth of "muh spetznaz" "muh Sukoi", "muh nugget", etc. People like red stars on things because the grass is always greener blah blah, so they think those things are are good, but they are objectively junk. I blame video games.

The only good thing a russian ever made was a soyuz capsule.

>>33015108
I don't know specifically for the F-35, but on the Super Hornet there's a (IIRC) ~$50,000 cable that connects the pilot's JHMCS helmet mounted display to the cockpit. That cable is that expensive because it has a quick-disconnect (think like what most wired gaming controllers have) that's designed with very high tolerances.

>>33015108
Frankly I'm not sure where (if at all) they store paper documentation other than in their flight suit pockets / kneeboard. If something goes wrong, the jet should be giving your checklists, etc on the displays (which are dual-redundant, plus there's a third emergency one for artificial horizon, etc).

>>33015200

>I blame video games.

I kinda do too. In video games everything has to be more or less "balanced" so Russia is always given capabilities that far exceed their real-world potential.

https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/832244266680344576

145 kills, 7 losses (presumably air-to-air), 49 SAMs killed with 51 weapons

>>33014804
This.
It's been years now that the F-35 fanboys try to convince the whole planet that this shit is the best shit.
"Look at what it can do on paper!"
"Look how it can fly without help!"
"It will be badass in year 2XXX!"
...
Delay after delay after delay...

>>33015354
Yeah man, it's a shame that the F-35 is the only military project to ever face delays.

Fucking retard

>>33015377
It's not even badly delayed, it's on par with other modern projects in terms of production time.

>>33015451
>It's not even badly delayed
Just a little decade, nothing...

>>33015635
>hopes, dreams, and unicorn farts.

>>33015635

It's not even close to a decade. The longest time frame you could argue is 5 years.

File: Untitled.png (1MB, 1456x1003px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1456x1003px

>>33015267
>that source
wew

as soon as you have something even remotely more sane I'd never post that again, friend. Correct or not

>>33012964

People happy with the F-35:

>Pilots
>Generals
>Analysts

People unhappy with the F-35:

>Dipshits on the internet

>>33016908
Well, she is a current stringer for Defense News, and a former stringer for Defense Daily.

Not entirely without credentials in the sector. I mean, it could have just been a random twitter asshole.

>>33013607
>http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/02/f35-delays-sentience/
R.I.P Billy

>>33013793
He's Carlo Kopp's split personality, his Dr. Jekyll.

It's like there were once problems and now someone fixed them.

Ah shit.

File: C1f6MovWEAERgPX[1].jpg (51KB, 552x367px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 552x367px

>>33016908
Fuck that, at least Valerie has the inside scoop and isn't a 50 year old guy reminiscing about how when *he* was in ___ aviation, they didn't some fancy ___, because they had ___ and ___ was good enough.

>>33016908
>can't refute so attempt to poison the well

File: 1485730640222.gif (999KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 250x251px

>>33019402

Is this making fun of Gen. Welsh or praising him?

I honestly can't tell.

>>33019755
Praising him / lightly making fun; the idea is that we're seeing Welsh going into his happy place while he listens to someone like McCain declare that he's wrong, A-10s do all CAS and Welsh is lying that F-15Es, F-16s and B-1Bs do the majority today.

File: 1486953386701.gif (3MB, 219x238px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 219x238px

>>33020592

Oh yeah. I remember that meeting. I completely understand it now.

>tfw McCain tells you that every plane except the A-10 does nothing

>>33014375
>ctol 80% Common (common with both other variants) or Cousin (Common with 1 other variant)
>Stovl 66% + Common or cousin
>CV 55%+ common or cousin

Gee, its almost like having a seperate wing, control surface, landing gear means a lot of unique parts

>>33014375
Common Parts are 33% off
Cousin are 50% off

CTOL
39.2% at 33% cost = 13%
41% at 50% cost = 20.5%
19.8% at 100% = 19.8
Development cost compared to a fully Unique design = 52.8% of development

Stovl
30% at 33% = 10%
37.5% at 50% = 18.75%
32.6% at 100% = 32.6%
Total 61.35%

CV
27.8% at 33% = 9.2%
29.1% at 50% = 14.5%
43.1% at 100% = 43.1
Total = 66.8%

Can anyone honestly say the F-16, F-18 and AV-8 could all be replaced at individual costs below 66%of each model?

>>33015215
Is it not possible to create a covering layer similar to a reactive lens in a pair of glasses to remove the need of a separate tinted lens

>>33020910
It probably is and I'm not entirely sure why it hasn't made it into fighter pilot visors; maybe they just can't go dark enough, maybe they're concerned that they'll take too long to transition if a pilot is flying below clouds then pops up into the sun, etc, or perhaps it doesn't work with the coatings they use to efficiently reflect the projector displays off the inside of the visor.

>>33020910
How about active polarization? More expensive, but tunable for the circumstances.

>>33018416
You forgot >Jazz Record Producer

>>33021005
I was thinking as a photo-reactive film on the outside of the visor

That would avoid it interfere with any internal projection issue
It would be possibly be vulnerable to WW2 tier floodlights darkening your view, but you could easily add a quickrip tab to remove is if needed

File: 1476922847288.gif (913KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 500x375px

>>33012964
>>33012973
>>33013540
>>33013560
>>33013587
>>33013607
>>33013637
>>33013710
>>33013731
>>33013770
>>33013786
>>33013793
>>33013824
>>33013825
>>33013850
>>33013893
>>33013901
>>33014062
>>33014321
>>33014333
>>33014375
>>33014391
>>33014392
>>33014397
>>33014401
>>33014407
>>33014409
>>33014439
>>33014450
>>33014463
>>33014470
>>33014472
>>33014478
>>33014532
>>33014535
>>33014545
>>33014554
>>33014581
>>33014593
>>33014600
>>33014614
>>33014643
>>33014655
>>33014673
And the rest of you faggots:

Actual Naval Pilot here. When will /k/ just admit they don't know shit about military aircraft? It is so fucking annoying to see these threads every time I scroll through the catalog. Granted military jets are weapons by design, I just don't understand the relevance of them to you. You all are a bunch of Internet warriors who have barely a passable understanding of firearms. What the fuck makes you all think you know about US Military aircraft? You read an article here and there; watched half a youtube video maybe? You don't know shit. Not a goddamn thing. And if by some disaster in a parallel universe you even attempted flying an aircraft, no less actually using it as a weapon, you would simply die. Don't fucking delude yourself because you know it's true. You have no business even talking about this kind of shit and it spreads misinformation. Essentially, you all just get dumber by the post. So congratulations on making and posting in these threads you fucking wannabes. I'm done with you faggots for now. Later.

>>33012973

Jokes on you I'm actually retarded.

>>33021186
You won't be missed.

File: dire_machine_study_by_tabtar-d9ruep5[1].jpg (358KB, 1024x1325px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1024x1325px

>>33021186
Nobody cares if you aren't contributing to the debate, faggot.

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

256KB, 1000x980px

>>33021186
So many words to say nothing.

>>33021369
>>33021327

It's a copypasta anyways guys.

>>33021186
New pasta?

>>33020843
Lockmart's process of development was really bad. 3 different planes would develop a lot smoother and delays that effect one would not effect others.

>>33018416
Analysts hate it.

>>33021186
Mods, please stop people from replying to everyone in the thread at once.

>>33013824
>punching a koala
He's taking his life into his own hands there.

>>33022799
Depends where you draw the line between analyst and blogger.

>>33021186
>naval pilot
Why would we care what some guy that drives boats has to say about the F-35?

>>33016908
>tfw no plane autist gf

>>33022788
Learn to fucking read, retard.

>>33013731
>2023
>implying that's a success

>>33023691
>Implying there was an implication

>>33018623
Lel

>>33013710
I have the Avalon airshow guidebook from 2005 where they were excited about getting the F35 'soon'
I'll see if I can find it for a laugh

I hope trump cancels it and buys new f18s

I could sustain myself on the butthurt here for months

>>33023606
No, you learn to read. The f-35 is 700 billion dollars overbudget. Why? Because making three planes in one results in lots of bullshit. Lots of delays, cost overruns, redisigns. If everything went smoothly, it would have been cheap. Instead, it became more expensive than 3 separate planes that all would have been developed smoothly, on time and on budget. They all would have been better at their jobs, too.

>>33023798
You could propell Musk to Mars with all the hate in these treads so far

>>33023851
>700 billion
You are actually retarded, and it shows, anon.

The F-35 program is literally one of the most, non-bullshit and worthwhile aircraft development programs in history, and denying that is at the least, extremely ignorant, if not downright disrespectful of the concept of intelligence.

>>33023892
>The F-35 program is literally one of the most, non-bullshit and worthwhile aircraft development programs in history,

HAHAHAHA. Seriously though, it actually holds the record for "most expensive thing ever funded by mankind". And it doesn't really do anything special.

>>33023919
>And it doesn't really do anything special.
B-but it flies? No?

>>33021186
Why is it even possible to quote that many people in one post?

>>33023919
>"most expensive thing ever funded by mankind".
If you're talking about the 1.5trillion number thats over 50 years of service life, and includes everything.

Its really not.

File: cashjet968[1].png (767KB, 968x504px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 968x504px

I wonder what the f-15 replacement will be. I read that a new type of fighter is supposed mixed in with the f-35 to act as the high to its low by 2030. We haven't heard anything about this supposed 6th gen fighter yet. I guess it's still too far away.

File: air_8f450cc37b4c[1].jpg (47KB, 432x410px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 432x410px

>>33024174
It's called PCA: Penetrating Counter Air.

The USAF doesn't know exactly what it'll be, they haven't even necessarily ruled out *not* producing a fighter (they're taking this chance to re-evaluate the role of fighters, like how they did with strategic nuclear bombers back in the 50/60s and ended up building ICBMs instead of jets like the XB-70).

However, the chances of it being a fighter are still pretty high, and the USAF AFRL have been funding technology development programs specifically tied to PCA.

One of those programs is a requirement for industry to get to TR7 (IIRC) with directed energy weapons. In other words, AFRL are funding lasers to get to the point that (eg) supercruising engine technology was prior to the ATF competition.

Another technology that'll be implemented (but which will also see integration into the F-35, probably F-22, etc) will be variable cycle engines; where they can vary their bypass ratio for ~30% more range or ~25% more thrust in flight. ~50,000lbf engines will be likely. This also should mean even faster supercruise if temperature can be managed sufficiently.

Another being touted (but which might not be implemented) is smart skins - having the jet's composite skin made up of circuitry, reducing weight (by not having to carry separate wiring) and allowing active cancellation of radio waves, as well as potentially much more sensitive RF sensors.

Overall, the USAF supposedly wants more range (China, etc are building longer ranged missiles, making tankers more vulnerable) and a deeper magazine. We're likely to see something more F-111 sized than F-22 sized. It'll likely be tailless and further emphasis into stealth, looking to achieve broadband, if not multi-spectral (IR, possibly visual) stealth. Sensors will be interesting - we'll still see radar and IR sensors, but at what ratio, what bands and what fields of regard are used will depend on what the USAF believes are the best ways to defeat 5th and other 6th gen fighters

>>33023919
>it actually holds the record for "most expensive thing ever funded by mankind".
When adjusted for inflation the first generation SLBM programs ran well over twice the cost of the F-35 program.

>>33021186
>300 confirmed kills, you're fucking dead kiddo, etc?

>>33012964
Reminder that the F-35 is the Starfighter of the 21st century

>>33024300
At what point will we see rouge AI's and Jessica Biel trapped behind enemy lines and/or wearing a bikini?

>>33025028
Judging from the scenes where they launch from the carrier, it can't be long off; there were quite a few F/A-18Cs on that deck.

Biel should still be good in a bikini ;)

>>33025145
go to bed mate its 3 am

>>33025155
You're not my real dad!

Plus, it's ̶F̶r̶i̶d̶a̶y̶ Saturday.

File: 978dacb8014178549ae1e2a7db2ededd50cd54bfb8844a809649b79811ee7457.jpg (24KB, 255x228px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 255x228px

>>33025222
>tfw you wake up at 6 in the morning and are like "oh shit i have to get to work" but you find out that it's Wednesday when you thought it was Thursday

File: slbm_launch.jpg (41KB, 485x348px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 485x348px

>>33021186
I do agree with this.

At best, people worry about the stats and numbers and we all know that's not going to show you how combat effective something is.

99.999999% of people here played DCS and looked up wikipedia pages on raw stats (which stats about anything military can be completely obfuscated because it's likely CLASSIFIED). And they come here to tout about shit they have no experience in, other than the games they play.

But if there wasn't threads like this, it wouldn't be as interesting. Let the NEETS be NEETS on a Friday night.

>>33022799
name one who isn't a jazz musician or blogger

>>33012964
>secret test nobody is allowed to talk about
>"The plane did really well. Really, really well. Trust us."

>>33021186
hey my dude if you want to supply us with that sweet sweet classified info feel free to man but until then we're going to have to keep using our shit-tier internet sources

>>33021186
>Later.

Later, skater.

>>33021186
b-but i played ace combat zero

>>33026888
>red flag
> a secret test

its like you are not even trying anymore

>>33026888
145 air-to-air kills, 7 air-to-air losses, all of which were from within visual range and at least one of which was from a flaw in the respawn system, 51 bombs dropped killing 49 advanced SAMs.

File: 1483395858758.gif (2MB, 179x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 179x320px

>>33029013

It's too powerful. What if it were to turn against us? We'd never be able to stop it.

File: arkansas-fan-gives-the-double-bird-during-game-against-cal1[1].gif (3MB, 500x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x270px

>>33029041
Cut off logistics / spare parts to them and be like

>>33024300
So they've gone full circle and decided on a stealthy XF-108?

>>33029254
Pretty much - it'll likely look more like a YF-23 or FB-22 than XF-108 though.

>>33021186
/k/ doesn't know shit about military aircraft.
This includes you.
>Actual Naval Pilot here.
nah

File: latest[1].png (31KB, 982x674px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 982x674px

>>33029609

>>33021186
>Naval Pilot
>Not Naval Aviator
Nice b8

File: 1484973998364.gif (132KB, 310x266px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 310x266px

>>33012964
has the f-35 ever gone up against an f-22 in those mock dog fights?

I would think it would lose pretty hard but still might be interesting

>>33030082

Not yet. There are not F-22's in aggressor squadrons as far as I know. But I don't think it will take very long for this to happen.

>>33014375
Why didn't they make a single version for the 3 forces?

>>33031076
Why? It wasn't that hard to take the base design of the A and make it STOVL, or reinforce and add lower speed operation for CATOBAR.

>>33031076

If they did that then the 3 forces would have endlessly fought over the specifications. Letting each branch have their own specialized variant smooths things over.

>>33031076
That'd mean a STOVL variant; you only accept the additional weight and cost of a STOVL jet if you have to (operate from LHDs).

File: Devastation.png (127KB, 544x1460px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 544x1460px

>>33012964

I'm just gonna leave this here.

>>33031424
Nice to see someone put Solomon in his place somewhere he cannot simply ban them.

>>33031629

I used to troll his site all the time until one day I just got bored and gave up. He's simply immune to facts and he attracts a horde of people who are even worse. That comment wasn't mine though. I just saw it by chance and decided that I'd scoop it up before it gets deleted.

>>33031720
-he hates Marine air because it is money not spent on delusions of a modern Normandy/Inchon landing
-he is a sucker for clickbait, despite being humiliated more than once
-he knows he has dug in too deep with his position to admit he was wrong

>>33023978
>An aircraft that can fly is something special

>>33024888
>I'm a high-fuctioning retard

What did he mean by this?

>>33024888
>implying it wont turn out to be the thunderjet

>>33034075
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmPGuMGs8cg