It's all over

File: cold_war.jpg (1MB, 2295x1487px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2295x1487px

>>33079412
Just gotta keep throwing money at it, it'll right itself eventually!

>>33079428
It has worked for every aircraft so far

F-35
I
N
I
S
H
E
D

>>33079412
holy shit.

>>33079412
J U S T

>>33079412
>This aircraft is so poorly designed that it cannot even carry missiles properly.

I know this thread is for (You)s, but still, saying it can't carry the missile is incorrect. Rather the margins for oscillation on the wings are not matching the requirements, so a refit is necessary.

File: 1487690603102.gif (968KB, 290x200px) Image search: [Google]

968KB, 290x200px

>>33079412

>It's literally just as simply as replacing the wing-tips

OP is a faggot.

>>33079472
>It can carry them, just not within tolerances

In other words not fucking properly, shill mcbill

>>33079412
>One minor, easily fixed issue on literally the lowest count variant
>Hurr dead, cancel it, I stick my dick in the blender for fun!

File: 1479514285272.jpg (10KB, 255x255px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 255x255px

>>33079481
>>33079472
>Not liking the F35 is just a meme and it's gonna be the best because muh Lockheed
Fucking 17 years, and counting.

>>33079536
>Implying it's not already the best
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/troubled-f-35-fighter-jet-rules-skies-toughest-test-yet/

>>33079472
>it can carry the missiles just not in flight!!!
Why do you feel the need to defend Lockheed Martin of all fucking things?

File: U2.jpg (137KB, 2048x1329px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 2048x1329px

>>33079594

>Why do you feel the need to defend Lockheed Martin of all fucking things?

Because they're the best around and nobody is ever gonna keep them down.

>>33079412
>This aircraft is so poorly designed that it cannot even carry missiles properly.

It's okay, bro. The taxpayer is an endless well of money.

>>33079594
There are going to be 200 more Bs and 2000 more As than Cs.

This only affects Cs.

This is literally a 3 month fix.

Stop being retarded.

>>33079617
OK, OP, we get it. You're an attention whore who thinks he's smart.

>>33079499

No. That's not what is said.

You're assuming that the margins for oscillation was critical instead of below optimum level during maneuvers when we don't know otherwise.

Given they didn't rush this issue soon as it was noticed in 2015, think it's fairly safe to assume it wasn't critical.

But sure, I'm a shill for applying a little critical thinking.

>>33079428
Fuck you, and fuck Lockheeb

File: 142874047.jpg (385KB, 1478x918px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1478x918px

>>33079412
ITT we pretend it is 2000 again.

>>33079663
>All aircraft are perfect once the drawings are complete!

>>33079633
This, nothing is perfect but our competitors are even more retarded designers so........ least retarded wins?

I bet the design teams met their diversity qoutas though.

>>33079769
Go home /pol/. You are adding nothing to the discussion with this shit.

>>33079769
harsh

Didn't the F16's wings needed to be redesigned

>>33079532
Replacing a big chunk of the wing, One minor, easily fixed issue ....
About that, how much does Lockshit pay you to peddle their crap?

>>33079412
>Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan
quick rundown on this guy?

>>33079921
Aeronautical engineer, AFA grad.

"General Bogdan was commissioned in 1983 from the U.S. Air Force Academy. He has served as an operational pilot, test pilot, staff officer, executive officer, acquisition program manager, and program director. He is a command pilot and experimental test pilot with more than 3,200 flying hours in more than 35 aircraft types, including the KC-135, FB-111A, B-2 and F-16. He has commanded at the squadron and group levels, and served as the executive officer to the Commander, Electronic Systems Center, and to the Commander, Air Force Materiel Command.

General Bogdan also served as the Program Executive Officer for the KC-46 Tanker Modernization Directorate, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. "

>>33079412
This happens with commercial airliners as well. the a380 had to have wing spars added. The 787 had to have all kinds of adjustments made.

>>33079933
>General Bogdan also served as the Program Executive Officer for the KC-46 Tanker Modernization
Put it in the fucking garbage

File: sea-trials-wings-folded-news__main[1].jpg (53KB, 700x510px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 700x510px

>>33079913
>Replacing a big chunk of the wing
You mean the part that already folds up, and thus can just be taken off? How does it feel to be retarded?

>>33079911
And tail, and intake, and a completely different engine...

>>33079911
>>33079992

The difference is that F-16 program costs 2$ compared to the Fail-35 program

>>33080001
Mission creep on the F-16 has probably put it on par with the F-35 adjusted for inflation.

>>33080001
Nice try, idiot. Accounting for inflation, tech advances, and various other elements the F-16 program would probably cost a lot more than the F-35 just in crash rates if it were started today. And I'll remind you that the F-35 costs less right now than a Typhoon or Rafale. Or F-16E/F Block 60. Or F-15E/K. Or a Japanese F-2.

File: 1487100839562s.jpg (3KB, 125x98px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x98px

>>33080013
>>33080019
>the F-16, in 40 years, has almost reached the cost of the F35 before it has even been cleared for service
>F35 haters BTFO!

>>33080019
* Lockheed typing furiously on the keyboard *

F-16 program will cost 4$ with inflation compared to F-35, at least the F-16 is working and kicked F-35 ass in 1v1

>>33080038
F-16E/F Block 60s are closer to $100m each.

Now go back to your nice caretaker and tell her you've been a bad boy lying on the internet.

File: 3038_001[1].jpg (29KB, 686x549px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 686x549px

>>33080036
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but Block 60 Desert Falcons are a very different aircraft from the F-16A.

>>33079412
ASRAAM wins again.

>>33080074
>I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here

The F35 is already, before it has even been cleared for service, more costly than the total cost, in 40 years, of the aircraft that it is meant to replace.

That isn't a good thing for the F35. That's a bad thing.

>>33080094
>The F35 is already, before it has even been cleared for service, more costly than the total cost, in 40 years, of the aircraft that it is meant to replace.
Except that you're wrong, but hey, why let facts get in the way of your opinion? I bet you're trying to run that out without inflation adjustment, or you think the Trillion number is money spent.

>>33080036
The F-35 is designed out of the gate to do everything the F-16 can do and more. The F-16's initial design was basically worthless dogshit.

>>33080094
How much do you think the F-35 has cost to date, and how much has the F-16 in total cost to date?

because you seem to know the exact numbers of both.

>>33080109
>>33080120
>>33080162

I'm simply going on what was said in these posts:

>>33080013
>>33080019

You're literally arguing against yourselves now.

>>33080162

Diff anon here.

F-16: A lot of money
F-35: Even more money x ???

>>33080212
So you don't know

cool

>>33080220

Yeah, you're right. I don't know. I'm not the person who said it costs the same. I am responding to them.

You should probably, you know, reply to *that person* rather than getting angry at me. Duh.

>>33080218
F16: crashed a lot due to lack of testing
F35: gets lots of testing so it does not kill pilots

Also you are forgetting about inflation again

>>33080248
Plus the iterative build-test-improve-build cycle means you don't have 500 built before the first fatal flaw lawn darts it.

>>33080218

Adjusted for inflation the F-16 program was about the same cost as the F-35 program, and a higher proportion of the GDP.

>>33079412

The source and article are horseshit.

That should be obvious to a grown adult

Meanwhile it's already launching AIM-120 AMRAAM and joint stand off missiles.

Boo-fucking-hoo a couple pylons don't do well with shit-ass sidewinders.

So ALL the delivered carrier variants need an upgrade. That's going to be like how many? 20-30? Who gives a fuxk. F35 shouldn't be in need of aim-9, it's a bvr implementation and holds amraams in stealth config.

More capable than any bird in the sky. Fact

>>33080551
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ

>>33079412
why has the government not sued lockheed for fraud or gross negligence?

File: disappointment.jpg (23KB, 620x363px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 620x363px

>>33079412
Just...ugh.
t. mechanical engineering major

>>33080861
...Because they've committed neither?

>>33079836
But he's probably right

>>33081088
It's irrelevant race baiting.

>>33079472
Holy shit, I thought Lockmart shills was just a meme. Thank you for opening my eyes...

File: sensiblechuckle.gif (993KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 250x250px

>>33080038

now im no aviation expert, but 4$ sounds like a steal to me

>>33081119
How can you justify calling it irrelevant?

>>33081051
the initial proposed budget has been overrun by what? 300%? 500%?

thats gross negligence

File: skqid.jpg (21KB, 250x370px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 250x370px

>>33079933
>KC-46 Tanker Modernization Directorate
UGH fucking chair force

>>33080861
Because aviation companies are protected national assets

>>33081173
Can you make any kind of justification that it is relevant? That it has had any negative effect?

>>33081196
>Budget and schedule proposed before X-35 even flew or the Pentagon tacked a ton of new tech to develop with the fighter
>Lockheed's fault

>>33081156
supreme kek anon, thank you

File: XVMf7efda20-df98-11e4-9f0c-01d836c0a27d.jpg (25KB, 805x453px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 805x453px

Still on sale, functioning multi-role aircraft, contact Dassault Aviation.

>>33081268
>How to spend more, get a less capable aircraft, and become beholden to France for parts

>>33081196
The budget overruns and program delays were the result of the program office sticking to the same schedule and budget set in the mid-90s despite the DoD tacking on a bunch of new technologies and extra requirements. The real issue is more that the DoD waited far too late to adjust the program for all the extra shit they tacked on - they effectively waited until the originally planned IOC date before they decided to adjust the program according to the changes they had been making.

>>33081268
"functional" is a great way of describing the Rafale.

Not good.

"Functional".

>>33081283
They're actually in the initial stages of an EU airforce, so chances are you'll probably end up being beholden to the entire EU shortly

File: Super Duper Hornet.jpg (2MB, 3360x2238px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3360x2238px

>>33081268
Anon, if we wanted a subpar meme plane we'd be buying Super Duper Hornets.

People in the thread completely missing the significance of this, which is being a block 3F delay after Trump announced the new competition.

And if the C-model order gets cut it might start a death spiral for the whole program, but that's not likely after everything that's been said.

>>33081283
>a less capable aircraft
At least the Rafale flies...

File: 1480423536204.jpg (103KB, 750x537px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 750x537px

>when stealth was added to the F/A-18XT concept but /k/ was completely silent

>>33081313
It's replacing the tilt-up wingtips on a couple dozen built units and just building with the new version on the remaining ~300. It's only a problem with AIM-9Xs on Cs and causes no problems for the rest of the fleet.

tl;dr you're talking out your ass.

>>33081370
Why do you get the urge to make such blatant bullshit posts?

>>33079933
And the general wants a cushy job at LM when he gets out.

>>33081379
Its just like F-15SE, it just isn't worth the money.

>USAF c. 1968
>The F4 is fantastic, but the god damned Sidewinders need serious modifications.
>USAF c. 2016
>The Sidewinder is fantastic, but the god damned F-35 needs serious modifications.

>>33081396
Because "less capable aircraft" was not a blatant bullshit? (let alone the "spend more" part kek)

What the fuck is the expected service lifetime for the F-35?
Six months?
It's practically obsolete already

>>33081471
40-50 years from what i've heard

>>33081465
How is it not less capable?

>>33081465
>Froglet thinks the Rafale is 5th gen

>>33081441
He's actually a successful officer, unlike, say, Col Ricioni and his attempt to use his career to sell the F-20.

>>33081465
>muh spectra!

>>33081489
Well that's fucking optimistic

It's going to be competing with UCAVs real soon.
Not to mention laser tech that may change the entire aircraft game

>>33081552
>Not to mention laser tech that may change the entire aircraft game

and that would make the F-35 redundant why?

>>33081505
Because it works?

>>33081573
If you're going to install a laser system on the aircraft, it's going to be designed from the ground up to carry that laser system.
The Navy's already planned ahead with the Zumwalt.

And secondly, it's going to completely change how AA works
You cannot evade laser. Roles are going to be completely revolutionized

>>33081552
>Implying the F-35 would be replaced by remote-operated craft, especially for deep strike stealth missions
>Implying you couldn't retrofit the F-35 with a laser

>>33081584
http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-slaughters-competition-red-flag-2017-2

>>33081621
>if you're putting a laser on an aircraft you're gonna design an aircraft from the ground up for the laser.

Are you not aware that there are plans to outfit the F-35 with a laser?

>>33081635
It will happened one day or another
Unmanned is the future
Thinking that you always need a human pilot inside the craft is like thinking that wagons will always need animals to pull them.

And, no, you can't just slap a laser on something and call it a day

>>33081621
They're already looking to fit the F-35 with a laser system. Got plenty of excess power for it.

It also won't make aircraft redundant for the foreseeable future due to power and scattering restraints.

>>33081647
They are also "plans" for the F-35 to suck the cocks of the people who approved it

The thing has been promised to do everything, forever.

>>33081639
Funny how they stopped to invite the Rafale to the red flag after being humiliated.

>>33081669
>It also won't make aircraft redundant for the foreseeable future due to power and scattering restraints.
Those will be overcome within the century and then what?

>>33081685
Thats pretty nice of them to stop red flag to invite the french.

>>33079412
>there is nothing wrong with the F-35!
>it is the most advanced plane in existence!
>nevermind that it still doesn't fucking work!
t. lockmart shills

>>33081660
It's extremely unlikely to ever happen as long as you have to run them remotely, or have a delay between decision and action. And how are you going to hold a computer responsible for wrong actions?

>And, no, you can't just slap a laser on something and call it a day
On the A you could just socket it in the gun space, or bolt it into Station 6 on all variants. If it can be installed to a fighter-sived craft the F-35 should have no problems.

>>33081685
>Funny how they stopped to invite the Rafale to the red flag after being humiliated.

>In a couple canned scenarios of of 14 engagements the Rafale managed to just barely get a gun lock even with a Luneburg lens at knife fight range

>>33081679
>hurr durr you can't prove it will ever get a laser
There are plans to equip it with one, which proves you wrong, nigger.

>>33081715
>The least produced variant that has the least number of users can't carry a single variant of the AIM-9 on an external pylon for a couple extra years
>nevermind that the fact that this issue will not exist by the time the aircraft enters FOC

>Doesn't work


You're the type of retard that thinks that development of the Hornet and Viper went smoothly.

>>33081716
>And how are you going to hold a computer responsible for wrong actions?
The same way we do now

Do you think aircraft fire on each other within visible range? The trigger is pulled based on computer data. If there's a computer error, innocents can be killed
This is true now and will still be true later.

And lasers require massive electrical requirements
That's what I'm getting at
It's not just a gun you can mount.

>>33081776
>it will be fixed when it's ready to be ready!
>just give us another trillion dollars!

Kelly Johnson is dead and so is Lockheed.

>>33079433
Power of America is that we can fuck up miserably and still somehow be alright

>>33080551
Sidewinders have shot down more aircraft than any other air-to-air missile. They will continue that trend for the foreseeable future.

Sure, BVR shooting seems so great, until you remember that sane rules of engagement don't allow you to fire at a blip at 60 kilometers.

And, if you want to know what happens when you do just go "FUCK THAT'S AN IRANIAN F-14!", ask the crew of USS Vincennes.

>>33081731
Talk about bullshits... I don't have the figures in mind but it was victory and draw, and no defeat for the Rafale. After what the US tried to save face by saying their planes had handicaps like lens shits or fuel tanks, which as been proven to be an obvious lie. Since it doesn't match with the comercial agenda of the US miltary industry they decided to not invite this dangerous plane anymore.

>>33081685

>Invite Rafale to Red Flag
>French too scared to get the Rafale dirty, send just Mirage instead
>Indians bring Su-30MKI, something France has wanted to compare against for the Indian fighter competition for years
>France immediately sends Rafale to Red Flag on short notice
>Arrives, barely participates in any combat, is noted by US to have a habit of entering, firing one missile then immediately running away
>Lingers at the edge of the combat zone just sniffing electronic signals like a creep at the window
>Exactly the same retarded nervous shit they pulled during an actual war once in Iraq in '91
>Barely does anything, goes home and never returns

Such is the story of Rafale at Red Flag. At least the Indians and Brits go balls deep with us and actually train without cowering away.

For those wondering about the above greentext:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA1mZF3FQhc

Skip to 10:45 and listen.

>>33081805
>just give us another trillion dollars!
>another
>Implying a trillion has been spent already
>Implying this isn't a cheap, easy fix
>Implying you're not a tremendous faggot.

>>33081846
Except BVR engagements are the majority of kills these days, and Non-cooperative target ID has been a real and effective thing since Vietnam. Don't blame the technology for a user fuckup.

>>33081878
It's what happened.

>>33081711
Not something you hold off on building aircraft for is the point

>>33081647
>>33081669
The excess power available is going to be inferior to an aircraft that is built with more power generation in mind, such as having dual engines and more lift weight so it can carry all those capacitors. More power and more capacitors mean more missiles neutralized per minute.

The F-35 COULD be outfitted with lasers but then the entire concept of the F-35 (multirole stealth with internal munitions) will have become a pointless endeavor. Remember that lasers on the ground are also a severe threat to the use of any slow-falling guided munitions. Retrofitting the lasers on other older aircraft may actually be easier provided they do something about completely overhauling the electronics.

Plus it needs gunpods instead of having its own cannons with a sufficient ammo supply; an old classic that may see more use when all your fancypants missiles get sizzled out of the sky but the plane's lasers are just not enough to burn the enemy aircraft.

File: opinion.png (2MB, 1398x1300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1398x1300px

>>33081302
anyone else think f18s are ugly?

>>33079472
>stealth aircraft
>can't carry missiles on the wing pylons well enough

oh nooooo

oh wait, just put them in the fucking internal bays

>>33082080
AIM-9Xs are rail launched, only drop-launch missiles like the AIM-120D work in the bays.

>>33082103
oh, interesting.

>>33081791
>It's not just a gun you can mount.
No, but there are plans to mount a later block F-35 with a laser powered by engine driveshaft that usually powers the lift-fain on the B variant.

It's not plug and play, but it wouldn't be super difficult to develop and is being looked in to.

File: lockheed_martin_bastelt_revolutionaerer_lockheedscuda-aam_0120121220182134[1].jpg (90KB, 1024x373px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1024x373px

>>33082116
There's also the CUDA/SACM AMRAAM-class half-size missile that the F-35 will be able to carry 12 of internally.

>>33082103
AIM-9X rails on F-35 weapon bay doors when

>>33082164
>The unlabeled 12in section
maneuvering rockets?

>>33082009
You don't use capacitors for lasers

>>33081217
How could prioritizing diversity over merit possibly not have any negative effect?

>>33081302
>>33082053
F-18s are incredibly A E S T H E T I C

>>33082192
Warhead section

>>33082251
CUDA is hit to kill, so that doesn't really make sense.

File: FA-18E landing 52.jpg (1MB, 7360x4912px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 7360x4912px

>>33082241
Yes.

>>33082266
Oh shit you are right. Or some reason i thought the top one was a AIM-120 for comparison

>>33082291
Why are they pushing that hose?

>>33082363
That's not a hose, it's the deck Anaconda.

File: Prowler-top.jpg (102KB, 1280x769px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1280x769px

>>33079982

It actually comes off really easily too. We have to take them off and put them back on at C school in the USMC.

This refit is not going to be a big deal. I bet they already have working models and just need to manufacture the new wing part.

>>33082192
Yes.

In addition to giving it better terminal tracking it's also supposed to allow the missile to alter it's trajectory rapidly so it can "sweep" through the target.

>>33082164
The small radome makes me think it'll be SARH

>>33081883
There is topic in this video that I think a lot of people miss: Jamming

The MiG 21 Bison can get to the merge simply by jamming. So essentially once the battle area has been established you just Jam your way close enough to an IRST kill.

File: 1366747827866.jpg (91KB, 640x932px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 640x932px

>>33082363

>hose

Its the cable the aircraft catches when it lands.

>>33082442
Unless there are clouds

>>33082230
>Implying that's what's been done
>Implying your version of "merit" isn't just "white people are better at everything"
>Implying NASA could have done any of its missions without the genius of a black female mathematician
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Johnson

>>33082439
It'll probably have two-way LPI link guidance into terminal range like the AIM-120D as well.

>>33082442
>Trying to jam a fighter that can go dark and use your transmitters against you

File: 1487544624916.jpg (59KB, 574x863px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 574x863px

>>33079481
>simply as replacing the wing-tips
>simply

>>33080094
>more costly than the total cost, in 40 years
No, more costly than the unit cost. A Block 60 F-16 costs more than an F-35A.

>>33082885
> implying a passive track is enough \

>>33082451
Oh, I thought that was the other cable in the picture. So why are they pushing it? Shouldn't it get winched back into position or something?

>>33082442
That's providing the jamming is effective enough. I'm sorry to say that the MiG-21 is unlikely to live to the merge even with the most modern of jammers behind it.

>>33082955
Home on Jam my dude.

>>33082939
They're mounted on a hinge, dumbass. This only applies to the F-35C.

>>33082955
It is, in fact.

File: 1473327845892.jpg (16KB, 600x298px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x298px

>>33079433
Oh?

>>33080120
How do you know it was "worthless dog shit"? There hasn't been a remotely decent air battle since Vietnam to test what works and doesn't work.

>>33080551
>BVR missiles are 100% effective and can never be jammed or dodged!!!!
>The F-35 will destroy Sukhois in BVR before they even know it's there!!!
Can you stop?

File: 1475948157663.jpg (26KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x375px

>>33081283
>Less capable

>>33082164
Common sense would suggest the CUDA is bullshit.

>Remove warhead
>Missile becomes half the length

>Add manouevring thrusters in section where warhead was
>Missile is still half the length of an AMRAAM, despite replacing the warhead with something the same size

>>33083310
>can never be jammed or dodge.
I mean, while technically not true, it's becoming harder and harder.

BVR is the future, nigger. That's how things are trending. I seriously doubt that the Russians or Chinese have ECM that is on par with the US's.

>>33083310
Why don't you? The majority of kills are BVR these days, and in 80% of those shoot-downs the target didn't know what was happening until the missile had them in the NEZ.

>>33083323
Nice shitpost.

>>33083361
https://fightersweep.com/4499/sacm-affordable-highly-lethal-missile/

File: ORD_AIM-120_AMRAAM_Cutaway_lg.jpg (35KB, 820x276px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 820x276px

>>33083361
>Common sense
I don't expect it to have the kinematics of the AIM-120D, it'll probably be closer to the B or C.

Which is still pretty damn good.

>>33083371
G forces in tracking turn are a square of speed, if missile travels at Mach 3 and fighter aircraft travels at Mach 0.6 (corner speed of many modern fighters) and can pull 9 g manoeuvres, then missile needs to pull 225 g. In BVR, an AIM-120 travels at Mach 4, and can pull 30 g within its NEZ, yet it would need 400 Gs to reliably hit a modern fighter which is manoeuvring at corner speed of Mach 0.6.

File: image.jpg (199KB, 1024x905px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1024x905px

>>33079412

>>33083383
Well the only test sources we have are against 3rd world air forces, the reason they didn't know they were being targeted is more than likely because they had no reliable sensors/pilot training. A modern fighter will definitely see any fighter actively scanning through RWR and passive radar, as well as firing a missile on them by IR/UV sensors.

To that, the return of actively scanning radar is about 25% of the outgoing power, meaning that a Sukhoi (for example) using passive radar will detect an F-35s active radar at 400% the range that the F-35 will get a reliable reading back.

>>33082251
don't make up answers, child

File: image.gif (1MB, 280x158px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 280x158px

>>every post in the thread

>>33083504
>To that, the return of actively scanning radar is about 25% of the outgoing power, meaning that a Sukhoi (for example) using passive radar will detect an F-35s active radar at 400% the range that the F-35 will get a reliable reading back.
Pfffttt, You've got the tactics and tech on that backwards. The Flanker is far more dependent on its active radar, and its IRST is forward-only.

>>33083444
I mean... not really. Read my comment before:
>>33083468

This is purely my opinion; the CUDA's range will NOT be the same as an AMRAAM. Even if the diameter is an inch or so larger.

>>33083468
Oh yeah, it's definitely possible to jink hard enough to dodge a missile, but there's going to be a lot of cases where the missile isn't even active and the target aircraft is destroyed without ever being made aware of a missile being fired.

You'll also lose a lot of speed pulling those 9G turns, much more vulnerable for a follow up shot.

>>33083538
What on earth are you talking about???

The F-35's whole gimmick is BVR combat with AMRAAMs, you need active radar for that... the Flanker has an IRST that is light years beyond the power of the Lightning's DAS, and if you're talking about EOTS, that's a downwards looking sensor that will not be able to play with Flankers flying high - and make no mistake, the flankers will abuse their altitude advantage.

>>33083395
> Macross Missile Massacre, the Early Days

>>33083468
>>33083560


No you retards the missile follows your flight path for a closing trajectory. theres no way you can alter your course to outmanuever advanced modern missiles. its just another asset with jamming and decoys and stealth factors to aid you.

>>33083569
wew fucking laddo

so fucking wrong its insane

>>33083560
First of all, thank you for being open to debate

Second of all, either the F-35 or the AMRAAM needs to be active to hit it's target, if the AMRAAM is active it shouldn't be difficult to pinpoint, if the 35 is active, the aggressor will need to rely on passive warning sensors (DAS-like sensors).

You're correct about the energy loss, jamming would be the first thing to do - manoeuvring the last resort.

>>33079412
>Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan
>Bogdan
was /pol/ right?

>>33082955
home on jam nigga

>>33083569
The AIM-120D can be guided into NEZ purely by the launch platform with an LPI datalink. There's no need for active radar until you're already dead to rights.

>>33083608
Jamming a missile on terminal doesn't work, its why HOJ exists.

>>33083596
Read my fucking post >>33083468

>>33083620
LPI is active radar, and LPI is interceptable. The datalink is also interceptable, which is why the F-22's link doesn't transmit.

>>33083638
>LPI is interceptable
>Low Probability of Intercept mode is interceptable

hmm

>>33083622
Partially correct, it's a little more complicated than that. Jamming the F-35, jamming the AMRAAM, turning off the jammer, manoeuvring etc. ect.

HOJ is a very good sensors option, I'll concede that. It will take ingenuity to avoid but it's quite doable.

File: Engagement-Distances-ADA615258.jpg (37KB, 608x444px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 608x444px

>>33083608
Don't think that they both need to be active as HOJ exists, LPIR is also a possible solution.

Just reading about 4th gen pilots training with F-22's and talking about being killed BVR without ever knowing they were being shot at leads me to believe that there are ways to launch AMRAAMs without showing up on their RWR.

Doing more research into the SACM, it's said to be a complement to the AMRAAM so it probably won't be as long-ranged as you've said, but I don't agree with the idea that it won't have legs.

>>33083468
>G forces in tracking turn are a square of speed
I would love to see a source for this.

>>33083670
>LPI
>L
>Low
LPI works by switching frequencies often, modern interferometric RWRs memorise patterns. LPI is detectable.

>>33083692
The F-35 is also "detectable".

Point is its LOW probability.

i.e don't rely on intercepting it

>>33083685
Less payload mass means it doesn't need as much propellant to get to max range, it's basically a main rocket motor, a cylinder of microburst rockets for super hard turning, and a radar seeker head.

>>33083692
Can't EOST of the F-35 provide targeting data to AMRAAMs.

>>33083686
Primary school physics should suffice, I would imagine.

Do some reading on banked turns and G forces.

>>33083703
No, stop being difficult. "LPI" was "LPI" when aircraft only had primitive RWRs.

File: 1280px-DesertStormMap_v2.svg.png (592KB, 1280x901px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 1280x901px

>>33081883
Cool story bro. Who told it? Oh yes, the sales representative in the video, it must be true. It's so rare to talk shit about the competitors in business...

>Lingers at the edge of the combat zone
>Exactly the same retarded nervous shit they pulled during an actual war once in Iraq in '91
A least in Iraq there was a reason, pic related.

>>33081927
No. It's what they said afterwards but it has been debuncked.

>>33083715
Scratch up on your knowledge of MAWS.

>>33083715
Yep, the EOTS has pretty good coverage zone and can act as an active target resolution element for the EO-DAS, the radar, and/or the Barracuda when the pilot's not actively using it.

The Vatnik who's backwards on Flanker Vs F-35 doesn't seem to get that the F-35 has advantage even in just that his systems are all working as one instead of being several places the pilot is distracted.

>>33083729
>No, stop being difficult. "LPI" was "LPI" when aircraft only had primitive RWRs.
You mean everything but the F-35 and maybe the F-22's?

>>33083719
Oh, yes, that's true if the missile is following the exact track of the aircraft it is intercepting.

However, it is not. It is travelling far faster, from further away, and having to deflect less to achieve the same endpoint to its trajectory. And that's if we're talking about a direct stern chase.

For simple intercept, your math is flat wrong. The missile is not turning to achieve identical vector, velocity and orientation as the aircraft. It merely must expend delta V to occupy the same point in space. This requires a great deal less change in velocity than you imply, as it can still intercept whilst traveling in complete right angle trajectory if necessary.

One would think primary school physics and critical thinking would have suggested this possibility to you.

>>33083735
>Francefag trying damage control.
Your own fucking pilots said that's what happened.

>>33083678
>It will take ingenuity to avoid but it's quite doable.

Hit probability is rather low with HOJ, and as I recall people have developed jammer-tugs to further throw off missiles.

>>33083764
And every aircraft built after the 80s, yes...

>>33083735

>Sales representative

He's a pilot you muppet, and he was very complimentary of other nations mentioned in that talk.

>>33083773
>One would think primary school physics and critical thinking would have suggested this possibility to you.
Oh fuck. Anon sent all that smug back at him squared.

File: f-35-eots.jpg (276KB, 2078x1080px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 2078x1080px

>>33083739
Are you trying to say that the EOST is only used as a MAWS? Or are you saying that any AMRAAM Launch can be detected by a MAWS?

I'm confused, anon. The EOST is located on the underside of the nose of the F-35 and can be used to scan for aircraft.

>>33083773
Absolutely, the possibility was evident, the reality was what I chose however. A snap 9g turn followed by a dive can't be calculated by anything, and the AMRAAM is travelling to fast to change - especially after the NEZ.

You seem like a smart guy, with you I'm willing to agree to disagree.

>>33083773
Thanks for posting that. I was hoping someone would call him on trying to apply this >>33083468 bullshit to a 3D two body intercept problem.

>>33083819
A lot of aicraft the F-35 will have to deal with have a higher ceiling and will use that to their advantage. EOTS is primarily a ground tracking sensor and is not as advanced as dedicated IRST.

I'm saying that even if the EOTS detects an aggressor and links the information to a missile, the missile can still be detected and avoided.

>>33083834
Tell me, what kind of Pks are we seeing with BVR missiles?

>>33079412
Where is Dragon? I want to read his walls of text full of desperate shilling and salt.

>>33083828
>Absolutely, the possibility was evident, the reality was what I chose however. A snap 9g turn followed by a dive can't be calculated by anything, and the AMRAAM is travelling to fast to change - especially after the NEZ.
Again, you're assuming the following:
>that a "snap turn" at 9G for a 20,000+lbs aircraft travelling at .6 mach
>performed late enough that an object travelling at Mach 4, weighing 335 lbs and capable of 40G maneuver to be unable to deflect and generate enough delta V to intercept
>with almost zero delay in the detect-decide-execute loop for the missile guidance system
will consistently generate misses given the missile has enough energy to execute the maneuver (within NEZ).

You are flat wrong. Now, I'm not going to sit down and draw you out all the calculus on this but I would think the weight of design criterion, existing systems and deployed missiles in militaries all over the world might be enough to make you reconsider your ridiculous position.

>You seem like a smart guy, with you I'm willing to agree to disagree.
It's easy to pretend like this is a matter of opinion, now that you realize what a simple mistake you've made. However, you can take your condescending ignorance and insert it, sideways orientation, directly up your rectum.

>>33083856
~50-60% against targets that aren't dropping countermeasures, performing defensive maneuvers, or using ECM.
Admittedly these are "old" values (mid 2000's or so IIRC), with newer missiles like the AIM-120D, Meteor, and K-77M the value might be more favorable against countermeasures, maneuvering targets, and ECM.

>>33083856
>Tell me, what kind of Pks are we seeing with BVR missiles?
Tell me, why do you assume any low historical pK performance is primarily a maneuver shortfall when the entire industry seems laser focused on sensor/seeker capability in missiles, and increasing total system energy (range), not maneuverability?

>>33083856
>arguing pK using combat data from seeker heads with less processing power than my digital watch
anon...

File: 1470294298262.png (40KB, 2506x530px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 2506x530px

>>33083925
OK no, keep going - you might be about to change my mind

Pic related is what you're saying, correct?

>>33083925
>It's easy to pretend like this is a matter of opinion, now that you realize what a simple mistake you've made. However, you can take your condescending ignorance and insert it, sideways orientation, directly up your rectum.
You. You, anon, I like. Sit down, have a beer. Sing me the song of your people.

>>33083951
That sounds about correct. It's not a good figure, I'm stating why I think this occurs.

>>33083848
MAWS are good, but I think that you're overestimating the sensors.

Do you really think that an IR camera can pick up the launch of a small missile at ~35km? Not to mention the fact that some russian aircraft don't even have MAWS (see:Su-24M shootdown).


You're basing your claim that the F-35's EOST can't detect aerial targets as well as dedicated IRST systems purely on conjecture.

>>33083976
Yes, that would be a basic diagram of the phenomenon.

This isn't to say that it's impossible for an aircraft to generate a missile miss with maneuver, but there would have to be mitigating circumstances (transitory interference in the seeker/guidance head decision making, for instance, like chaff at just the right time).

The simple fact is that the window for an aircraft to leave the maneuver late enough to leave the missile unable to deflect enough yet have enough time to execute it is vanishingly small to non-existent depending on the math of the specific intercept problem.

>>33083976
What if the plane is running from the missile
Waits till its close
Then turns at 9 g

>>33084083
Alright I get it, and I also apologise for being a wanker, F-35 threads fire me up.

So the best way to avoid a any missile is to bleed it's energy and confuse it, we've established that BVR missile are effective, but less effective than WVR missiles, can we agree to that at least?

So if a missile can be ranged, and when it's within ~1500 meters, then the aggressor manoeuvres, the missile will have a very hard time getting back into line. I think you've mistaken my point to be that manoeuvring will the missile is still kilometers away will dodge it - that's not what I'm saying.

Here are a list of what I envision to avoid a BVR missile:

1. Jinking (Once missile gets closer, aircraft will make a hard turn in opposite direction; if missile follows, aircraft will immediately reverse the turn.)

2. Climb (Bleed this missiles energy) then dive for the ground and pull up to regain your energy

3. Turn away and dive for the ground, gaining speed and putting as much distance as possible between aircraft and the missile.

4. Turn hard to either left or right so as to fly at roughly 90 degrees angle to attacking aircraft, forcing the missile to bleed energy and lead the target, at which point the aircraft turns sharp away from the missile and the missile's turn radius is too large to intercept

5. Basic end manoeuvres when the missile is close (i.e. barrel rolls, sharp cornering)

>>33084181
That's the basics of what I'm saying, everyone assumed I meant performing said manoeuvres when the missile is still kilometers away.

>>33084216
>So the best way to avoid a any missile is to bleed it's energy and confuse it,
Yep. That's what we see in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uh4yMAx2UA
You dolphin constantly to make the missile waste energy with constant course corrections over the entire flight path then pop countermeasures.

>I think you've mistaken my point to be that manoeuvring will the missile is still kilometers away will dodge it - that's not what I'm saying.
No, I understood exactly what you were saying. What you're missing is that for the aircraft to have time to complete the maneuver before intercept, it would have to begin it while the missile was still over a kilometer out. It's going Mach 4, remember? Still plenty of distance and time for that missile to deflect a little and achieve intercept. You don't defeat modern SAMs and A2A missiles with last second maneuvers, at least not that alone.

>>33084277
>begin it while the missile was still over a kilometer out
I have no illusions of that, the figure I stated was 1.5km. At that point the 30g of the missile is simply not enough to stay in the turn.

It's not that missile are EASY to avoid, it's that they are very much avoidable.

Thank you for expanding my view on the matter, never though /k/ would be the place that would happen... I'm going to turn of notifications on this thread now, I'd like to talk with you more on the matter - not sure how that would happen though, there's no way I'm posting my email here. Anything to add before I piss off?

>>33083875
>Where is Dragon? I want to read his walls of text full of desperate shilling and salt.
Mad he BTFO's your stupidity every time?

>>33084330
>30g
40g

>At that point the 30g of the missile is simply not enough to stay in the turn.
Anon. For the last time. It's not "staying in the turn". It's not turning with the aircraft. It's deflecting just enough to intersect with the aircraft. It can still be going at right angles to the aircraft when it gets there. Stop thinking it has to turn with it. It can cut across the entire turn if it needs to.

>It's not that missile are EASY to avoid, it's that they are very much avoidable.
No. They're really not. If you're in a modern missile's NEZ and you think a last minute jink is going to save you, you are a dead man.

>Thank you for expanding my view on the matter
You are still showing signs of deep confusion on this.

>>33084381
You're going to have draw it in crayon for him, anon. I just don't think he's going to get it otherwise.

>>33079412
>the carrier variant that hasn't finished testing isn't fully operational locksmart shills BTFO
Stop being such a spastic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgLjNsB_hyM

>>33083774
>damage control
3 threads a day to explain why and how the F-35 "will " not be a shit, and you dare talk about damage control...

>>33083791
>he was very complimentary of other nations mentioned in that talk.
You mean the nations that don't sell competitors for the F-35? How surprising.

>>33084424
>will


Please refer to >>33084410

It's already great, you're just autistic.

>>33084381
Not confusion, I suppose I just can't accept the reality

I concede defeat, see you later

>>33082053
Yes, they're fucking pig disgusting.
I hate that my nation uses them.

Why couldn't we be cool kids and have Eagles?

>>33079412

How big is the wing fold? It looks tiny, almost small enough to tell the Navy to dump the C model and make do with the B model.

>>33085729
You are retarded, I'm sorry you had to find out this way.

>>33083240
They stopped throwing money on it because McDonell Douglas had no idea what the fuck they were doing, and their entire bid depended on getting a technology transfer for stealth from Northrop or Lockheed, which was denied.

File: 1457767451168.jpg (1MB, 4592x3056px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4592x3056px

>>33085169
You got a superior package over eagles.

File: F-35AvC.png (546KB, 1724x1431px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 1724x1431px

>>33083875
Just arrived; like others have said, the F-35C wingtip issue is no big deal; it could've still carried Sidewinders as is, they just would have run into issues down the road. The fix is reasonably simple and the new wingtips are fairly easily installed; the jet's actual wing / fuselage structure doesn't require any modification.

>>33085729
It's not that small; it folds roughly 50-60% of the way to the wingtip. Removing wing area would require the removal of tail area; ultimately driving down low-speed handling performance and stall speed. The F-35C's wing folds roughly where the ailerons end on the A and B variants. See pic.

ｷﾀ━━━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ)━━━━━━ !!!!!

>>33085914
That's more of the 70% mark to me

>>33080074
This is, and will always be my favorite looking fighter aircraft. If I could, I would fuck it.

File: 8fba5698cad65f7b056bc4a1d82cafc8[1].jpg (79KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 500x400px

>>33086050
The wingfold location relative to the *F-35C's* wing though is more 50-60% (this pic shows it a bit better).

File: 1487169938070.gif (2MB, 360x202px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x202px

>>33079481
you make it sound like lockheed won't figure out a way for it to cost $2-5 million dollars per-plane to 'replace the wing-tips'

File: Protect your mind.jpg (39KB, 855x467px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 855x467px

>>33086114
Appropriate picture there.

I heard about this. The f-35 wing has some fault called "transonic roll off" something. Basically it vibrates a lot when it's near either side of mach 1. They said it doesn't matter but I guess they were wrong.

>>33079633
>Laser guide tech is literally from the 90s
>Other planes are more advanced than f35
>Still not fixed

>>33086114
Seeing as how the plane hasn't hit mass production it wont actually be a replacement, rather all future aircraft will be built with the new wing design.

>>33086211
What are you even trying to say you incoherent retard?

>>33086224
Yeah, it's comparable to the issues with the F-16's tail except we didn't have to wait until we had already built 600 of them and witnessed several crashes.

>>33080054
Nope, brand new f-16 jets are actually around 28 million each.

>>33086250
Except the F-35C's wingtip issues with AMRAAMs aren't an imminent cause for hull losses.

>>33086286
No, they're about 78 at the cheapest, and that's just for the jet. If you count everything that comes with it, it's over 170 million a pop.

>>33085845

Waiting on you to be useful to the conversation.

>>33085914

As the other anon pointed out, it looks like it's a smaller chunk of the folding wing. Other sections are scaled to match, as you noted, but if the fix ends up being ineffective, no reason the B mod couldn't suffice. It's not like we're saying ax the whole program, but there's cost efficiencies to be made if the revised folding wing still doesn't work. If.

>>33086286
>$28mil for a brand new F-16
Holy fuck guys, a time traveler.

>>33086090

Ah, that does show it better. Top-down schematic doesn't do it justice.

>>33086386
>just use the less capable STOVL aircraft to fulfill the CATOBAR requirements of the USN and USMC
>he thinks that this issue won't be resolved almost immediately
You're still retarded

>>33086090
ARE YOU THREATENING ME?

>>33084381
>No. They're really not.

Yes they are you fucking sperg, if an AMRAAM is launched at the limit of it's range then yes it can be avoided.

>>33086421

BACK THE FUCK OFF!?!?!

>>33085884
Bullshit
The Strike Eagle is cheaper, has a greater payload, and has a similar combat radius.
It's also much sexier.

F18 is the ugliest aircraft in the last century.
A Cesna is more exciting to look at.

>>33086461
Read the fucking reply string, captain autismo. We're not talking about an energy defeat. We're talking about a purely kinematic defeat within the missile's NEZ.

Kindly go fuck yourself.

>>33086386
By B mod, are you talking about replacing the F-35C with the F-35B, lift-fan & all? If so that's fine, although you'll have a shorter ranged jet and one that can't carry as heavy internal ordnance.

If you mean an F-35A or B with a tailhook, it's a no-go; both jets just don't meet the Navy low-speed handling requirements while at the necessary (relatively low) angle of attack.

>>33086421
He's pretending to surrender to someone who's caught him off guard, but he's secretly CCing.

>>33086461
He specifically said within the missile's NEZ. Also, I'm currently working on a simplified Excel spreadsheet / calculator to look at these numbers - so far things look bad for the jet trying to avoid

>>33086484

Ever heard of Kill Probability?

>>33079412
I like how they go LRIP even when there's a lot of problems, then fix all the planes they've already produced and then put the extra expenses on the government.

>>33086250
>He didn't read the OP

Lol. He literally says that the f-35 has laser guide tech so out dated, it can't hit an insurgent in a moving Toyota. It can't track moving targets, something the f-18 and f-16 can do. This is because the plane was designed in the 90s and got delayed so much. It's ridiculous.

>>33086488
Right. Because kinematic defeat is the ONLY factor in pK numbers, amirite?

Jesus. The children around here. An entire reply string FULL of good explanation as to why something doesn't work the way they think it does, but they can't be fucked to read it and insist on their own retardation.

>>33086337
The f-35b costs 120 million without the engine. Double that with the engine.

>>33079412
See, this is why project creep is so deadly to new designs. You end up trying to do a million things at once and fail at the original goal. It would have been better just to get just the F-35A working first and then work on the B and C variants. Or at least it would have been if they weren't trying to put some kind of weird networked radar system in it.

>>33079428
We could have bought dozens of F-22s for the money we put into the F-35. We'd at least know that they would work.

>>33080927
Don't talk shit until you graduate from a top 10 institution.

Well, I'm out of here. Special Ed just let out and the shitposting is hitting apocalyptic levels.

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1478959522442.jpg (126KB, 700x530px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 700x530px

>>33079428
>There are currently no plans to install weapons capable of hitting moving and maneuvering targets, such as an insurgent driving away in a pickup truck. The F-35’s laser designator cannot lead the target, its basic inventory of late-1990s guided bombs will fall short if that target moves briskly.

Holy shit, Lockheed.

>>33086495
Yes, as opposed to the F-16 which skipped LRIP and went straight into production without producing enough flight hours to identify the major flaws with the aircraft, leading to the death of a good number of pilots.

Would you have rather we put the jet into production 10 years ago and only found out about the engine wear-in issue, tail-hook issue, etc... after we had produced 1200 aircraft?

>>33086531
I'm talking about the F-16.

>>33086537
>Should have built the F-35A first before doing the C

How would that have prevented this issue, which is specific to the C variant?

>>33086577
I'm making your point moot by bringing up the cost of the f-35b.

>>33086413

Wow, must've hit a nerve. And you're still useless. 5th gen aircraft on a working frame, as a prior Red flag had shown. Or did I knock your golden goose too hard in noting that if a model has an irrevocable failure point, that another model of the same family used in the similar conditions could suffice? God forbid you know a thing or two about budget pressures and making hard choices, anon.

>>33086486

Pretty much, first scenario. While I hope the Navy gets a fix (except for the off chance the above anon would cry sweet, sweet tears if they don't), knowing there's a minimal-problem/minimal-retraining alternate should make the overall program harder to kill, budget cut risks aside. It'll still be ages ahead of Russian stuff and have the edge needed to balance China's numbers.

>>33086633
What the fuck does the F-35B have to do with the F-16?

New F-16's are about $100mil and so are new F-35As, which is the variant you should be comparing to the F-16.

>>33086652
>used in similar conditions
Nigger are you saying we should be operating STOVL aircraft off of our USN carriers because that's fucking retarded.

There is not a single scenario where the F-35C is cut by the USN in favor of F-35B's, though it is possible that they reduce the number to buy interim Super Hornets in order to help reduce the load on the current fleet of aircraft.

This wing tip issue is very minor.

>>33086211
>Other planes are more advanced than f35
You're a fucking moron.

>>33086661
As are about $80mil now.

>>33086508
>>33086565

The article is wrong, even contradicting the DOT&E who are pretty pessimistic. The F-35 can hit moving targets and track moving targets today - the latter of which it does better than any other jet.
What it can't do (because the tech was new / not introduced when the F-35 first had its requirements written) is automatically point its laser ahead of a target, so that ancient laser-guided bombs like the GBU-12 will hit the target directly. The F-35's original hit-moving-targets capability was supposedly the CBU-97 or CBU-105, but they're being phased out because they don't meet new government regulatory requirements about not leaving unexploded ordnance around.
Pilots can get around this today by simply manually adjusting the laser in front of the target based on their training / experience (and 500lb GBU-12 bombs have a decent effective kill radius against soft-skinned targets), but that was deemed unacceptable because new pilots might not be able to do that.
They're now fixing the issue by simply swapping the GBU-12 out for something like the GBU-49; almost the same bomb (practically indistinguishable to the F-35's electronics and aerodynamics), but with newer avionics in the bomb automatically provide that lead-laser function.

>>33086531
$122.8 million for the F-35B, including engine.

>>33086482
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoPVC4YxDlI
>Not getting the reference

>>33086486

FWIW I think if they really wanted in on the frame commonality meme, they should have made the A and B big-wing as well. The plane becomes draggier, but also generates more lift for nose pointing and other tricks.

What other things can go wrong dragon?

>>33086633
I didn't say anything about the F-35, I'm saying the guy who said a F-16 is 28 million dollars a pop was wrong.

>>33086771
The F-35C is really quite penalised in terms of transonic / supersonic acceleration - it takes almost twice as long as the A variant to go from Mach 0.8 to 1.2. The extra weight also would prohibit the F-35B from hovering, and/or reduce it to something like a 5G max aircraft.

>>33086661
>New F-16's are about $100mil

No, it's closer to 30 mil. The f-35b is 120mil, or 240mil with engine. 500mil if you count maintainence. Multiply that by 2500 and it's over a trillion dollars. Compared to the f-16, it's pretty overblown.

>>33086537
No, this is a problem that would have otherwise gone unnoticed until far too late without the LRIP system.

>>33086483
The strike eagle is not cheaper but it does have a better combat radius.

>>33086824
Captain Shitpost and his sidekick Asspull Numbers strikes again.

>>33086824

1998 and 2007 called, they want their numbers back.

>>33086824
i love it how single engine is 120 mil, now thats a shit posting

>>33086824
An F-16A, maybe an early block C might've been. E/F Block 60s are selling fort around $100m.

>>33086824
Don't worry anon, I can see your shitty sarcasm even though nobody else can.

>>33082439
SARH won't happen, not if they want it in a stealthy air frame. Being forced to illuminate the target is a huge, huge disadvantage. I'd rather 6 AIM-120, if it's SARH.

>>33082442
>implying AIM-120 can't home on jam
>implying that a AN-APG-81 won't burn through the jammer beyond IRST range
>implying the MiG-21 has a better IRST
>implying the MiG-21 could find the target at all
Holy fuck, anon.

>>33086844
The Strike Eagle cost $31M when we bought our Super Hornets for $70M a piece.

>>33087395
Your dumb ass didn't watch the video did it?

File: 1297473419838.jpg (22KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x400px

>>33086531
>The f-35b costs 120 million without the engine. Double that with the engine.

>>33082994
Dude in the video literally said that it did.

>>33087497
that intellectually dishonesty though, you might as well claim an F-16 costs $20 mil

>>33079412

Anon, you are completely lost. I mean fundamentally you don't have any grasp on radar systems. Then you try to talk IR and blow it worse.

Also neglect the basic premise of F35 squad tactics which is of course sensor information sharing.

Also, fucking AMRAAM is programmed by data link and doesn't go active radar until its too late to counter. Don't you fucking say jamming either. You know it's going to lock on jam

>>33087536
What?

A Strike Eagle cost $31M flyaway in 1998.
When we locked in our first batch of Super Hornets in 1998 they cost $71M.

>>33080054
http://planes.axlegeeks.com/l/2028/Lockheed-F-16E-F-Block-60
All sources I could find was $55M.

>>33087587
Well would you look at that its no longer 1998 and those are not the current prices for those aircraft.

>>33087641
Or even the correct configuration/variant.

>>33087641
But I'm talking about my country when we purchased the fucking aircraft you fucking mong.

Strike Eagles were the better and much more aesthetic choice.
Politics and shady acquisition caused us to buy Hornets, despite having no fucking carriers.

Jesus tittyfucking Christ.

Couldn't they have developed the B first and got it sold and devliered. Then release the A and C later along with Block improvements?

>>33087705
Anon, it's taken seventeen fucking years already.
Commonality was the entire purpose of the program and it's already down to like 40%.

If we developed three entirely different versions in succession, we'd be forty years down the track and still be in the fucking testing stage for Naval versions.

File: 1479510098971.jpg (37KB, 260x476px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 260x476px

SIX TRILLION$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

>>33086570
I'd rather they straighten out the major chinks first before going into LRIP. It's like they know the problem but did not fix it before LRIP so they can get more money out of it.

>>33087781
who had the bright idea of making it like this anyways?

>>33087808
>major chinks
Don't you know chinks are always short?

t. sad, squinty manlet

>>33087699
Ok all the F16s cost $15mil shills are confusing my ability to follow conversations.

>>33082977
probably so it doesn't hit people when it starts getting reeled in.

>>33087685
?
>>33087820
Look up the F111, similar scope and similar results.
Try to do too many things and costs blow out massively.
At least the Aardvark turned into a successful strike bomber, it was never a successful air superiority fighter or multirole.

The F-35 will be a decent multirole, but for the investment, I think we fucked up.

>>33087705
No one wants the B version. It's range is so short that it puts its carrier within range of coastal missiles.

>>33087781
The only reason we had so many delays was because Lockheed kept building planes, finding faults, and then rebuilding them. 3 planes at once means 3 times the faults. One version that's fine by itself would have to be redone and compromised in order to fit commonality with another variant. The B (VTOL) version has fucked over the A and C more than you know.

File: 1487179422589.jpg (66KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x375px

>>33079412
>This aircraft is so poorly designed that it cannot even carry missiles properly.

It was never originally designed to have pylon mounts on wings.
It is almost considered a 10 year aircraft.

>>33087836
Just hit the fucking quote button you drop kick.

>>33087872
The B was the reason it exists. So we could sell it to other countries with their tiny carriers.

Only the USA and France can use the C.

>>33081456
F-4s and sidewinders were fine; it was the pilots that needed serious modifications (see: AF vs. Navy kill ratios over the course of the war).

>>33081552
Anon, you do know the nickname of the fuel tank in the A located where the B's lift fan is, right?

>>33087808
Lockheed pays for changes to current airframes, I believe that they'll be the ones footing the bill for this C-variant update.

They can't find out what the major "chinks" are without accumulating high numbers of hours on airframes, having 200 flying aircraft allows them to be testing a bunch of aircraft at once and allows them to discover bugs.


The other options would have been

>1
>accumulate flight hours on a much more limited number of test aircraft
>takes a lot longer to get into FRP

or
>2
>rush into FRP without going through LRIP batches of aircraft
>Don't discover a ton of fatal flaws in the aircraft
>the military gets them faster but they have tons of problems that will require even more money and time to fix down the line than if they had been developed through concurrency.

>>33087911
It's the A version everyone is buying. The B is only being sold to countries who need to replace their harriers. Italy and Britain. Everyone else, Israel, Australia, Norway. They are all getting the A.

>>33087932
No, do you? I bet they call it the kamikaze tank because it's super prone to catching fire.

>>33087872
>No one wants the B version. It's range is so short that it puts its carrier within range of coastal missiles.
It's literally longer ranged than the bug, superbug, harrier or navalized Rafale.

What the fuck kind of range do you need?

>>33087872
>Nobody wants the B version
Are you fucking retarded?

The USMC is frothing at the fucking mouth to get a 5th gen multi role to replace their Harriers. It's superior in nearly every single way.


The future of both the UK and Italy's naval aviation depends purely on the success of the F-35B.

What the fuck are you smoking.

File: Brainless_by_FailAtLife_400x400[1].jpg (18KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x400px

>>33087805

>>33087888
Thats what I am doing I though you where one of the "well F16 cost $20mil in 1970 why sould we pay more now" when you where just talking about what you country should have adopted in 1998.

>>33087951
Israel is considering getting F-35Bs to compliment their F-35A's.

The JSF came about because the USMC wanted a 5th gen fighter and the USAF figured that a CTOl aircraft could be developed based on the USMC's requirements.

>>33087871
>Look up the F111, similar scope and similar results.
Not at all. The F-111 was put straight into production from a paper design from impossible to achieve goals at the time.

If you think that's the F-35 you need your head examined.

>>33087978
More range than a coastal missile.

>>33081846
You should watch the Mayday!/Air Disasters ep on the Vincennes. The F-14 mis-ID was because the IFF picked up an F-14 squawk on the same bearing--because one was getting ready for takeoff from the same mixed-use airport.

Fortunately, NCTR and DAS can do a pretty good job at IDing targets beyond 50NM.

>>33087980
Fuck off. The marines? The Brits? Wow it's fucking nothing. The A version is what everyone wants to be delivered.

>>33088018
>Israel is considering getting F-35Bs to

They are getting their F-35s for chump change in order to convince other countries to keep funding it for them. If they are "considering the B", it's all part of the ruse.

>>33088049
>I demand ridiculous program requirements because I just don't like the F-35, dagnabit

What a cunt

>>33088034
>Single original airframe.
>Designed to bring exciting new technology into aviation.
>Project expanded to be a catch all.
>Multiple air frames projected.
>Was never top of the wazza like it was originally meant to be.
>Cost overruns.

Only difference was that the carrier variant was scrapped.

>>33087872
>The only reason we had so many delays was because Lockheed kept building planes, finding faults, and then rebuilding them.
You're an idiot. That kind of work was going to happen anyways. The difference is that Build-test-fix-build iteration means we save a shit ton of money on crashes and serious damage from not catching those faults you airhead.

>>33082009
Ahhh, the old "lasers need too much power" trope...

Let's imagine 100kw laser, only 10% efficient (we're above 20% these days). Let's further assume that it takes three and a half seconds to actually kill something with it--a really long time at that power, but sure.

That means, if you do the math, that each shot needs a kilowatt-hour of power. That's... not all that much.

>>33088099
The C and A can do it.

>>33088119
Um, no. 600nmi combat radius for A and C, 450nmi combat radius for B. None of these are launching from beyond subsonic AShM range.

>>33088086
Nope, they want B's because they can operate off roads in the event that their airbases are destroyed. They're considering lower the number of A's they buy in order to get a couple of B's.

>>33088065
>He' doesn't want the US to be able to effectively have ~20 carriers all with 5th gen aircraft.

u gay, son. The USAF and USMC's CALF program is the reason we have F-35's in the first place, anyway.

>>33088107
>Never properly tested or vetted for capability
>Was actually the most expensive fighter ever built
>Never met design requirements
The Switchblade Edsel is a retarded comparison for the F-35. And I'll remind to that the F-4 was a multi-service fighter-bomber that performed admirable at an acceptable price.

>>33088140
Are you so stupid that you use combat radius without including standoff range of missiles?

>>33088140
Nope, that's been updated:
Combat radius: 625 nmi[675] (1,158 km) interdiction mission on internal fuel, 760 nmi[676] (1,407 km) for internal air to air configuration

>>33086286
?

>>33088200
For what version?

>>33082977
It does get winched back, and there are four of them. They're making sure it doesn't catch on anything or get kinked, as then it would have to be replaced.