Why do retards constantly bash the F-35?

>>33331735
probably yea

>>33331735

because the internet has given every fool a voice and idiots are easy to fool

there are plenty of things to criticize the f-35 about but most detractors never touch upon these things

>>33331735
>>33331775
If you went back in time I wonder what people would say about projects then.

File: 1458785243137.jpg (227KB, 1024x678px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1024x678px

>>33331892
Death trap, navy plane that cant even land on carriers

>Why do retards say retarded things

Gee I wonder.

File: 1460383306218.jpg (243KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1920x1200px

>>33331892
Some "Flying fortress" cant even fly into enemy territory without getting shot down

File: 1473722425585.jpg (90KB, 639x615px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 639x615px

>>33331735
The internet+ normies basically

CNN tells them we wasted 1.5 trillion on a turkey and they get mad that we don't spend that money on the homeless.

If the f16 was being developed in the Internet age, it would be a shit storm.

Those f16s were dropping like flies
Nicknamed the "lawn dart"

>>33331735
doesn't matter cheeto in chief trumpf is trash canning it for more f-18s.

>>33331735
>>33332852
This one of those retards saying retarded things?

>>33331735

At school with a twelve year Navy vet ( Honorable, medical). He thinks that the A and C had to make massive design concessions in order to accomodate the STOVL B variant. Hes wrong, but indoctrinated so bad he cant be told the truth.

The other guy is a Air force mechanic that ironically says stealth is a gimmick. A fucking gimmick. This is a guy who actually DOES understand some of the electromagnetic theory we are learning, but again... so indoctrinated by parroting morons, he really thinks that stealth is going to be "broken" by on-board radar.

Like it's a trivial algorithm or something. All airmen need to take a University level PHYS
ICS ONE and TWO and associated labs

>>33331735
Yes we're tired of paying for your bullshit. You don't need it and you've never fought for freedom. You've never protected our rights from tyrants. You've only fought for those who violate our rights.

>>33332900
>The other guy is a Air force mechanic that ironically says stealth is a gimmick. A fucking gimmick.

"There are many disbelievers in stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it."

Sherm Mullin, Skunk works

>>33332852

DOnt be messin with foos that gone on that wata wata

File: 1464316612759.png (60KB, 703x431px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 703x431px

>>33331735
People bash the F-35 for many different reasons, and not all who do so are retarded.

One common reason around here is because it's fucking hilarious the bullshit that the fanbois will post in response.

If you're looking for a serious answer, yeah, serious criticism mostly boils down to the fact that we paid an inconceivably large amount of money for these really cool toys that we don't have any real need of, while our own basic infrastructure is rotting into nothing.

>>33332922
>"There are many disbelievers in stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it."

Thats him.

though, he's 10 years younger and I'm more than capable of embarrassing his point of view on this and any other subject. Thing is, I wouldnt do that. it's a leadership thing.

Hes likely going to be a subordinate but for now, I want him to feel good about himself and me as a cohort. I'll just voodoo his mid until he thinks that my idea, that I implanted was his idea that he came to accept.

Josh, are you reading this, because It's totally a different josh I'm talking about. not you Josh

>>33333057
>don't need
>legacy aircraft literally falling out of the sky at an increasing rate
>don't need
>would be more expensive to maintain current fleet of aircraft and would give less benefits
>don't need


REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>33332901
>Hitler, Mussolini, Emperor
>Communists
>Remove Saddam

many a 3rd world dictator or warlord has died at US hands

File: F-16 is a failure.jpg (191KB, 1560x585px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1560x585px

>>33331892

>>33333437
>>33331892
Forgot link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrtxDdaWuM

>>33331735
It's because we are paying for a 5.5th gen fighter when everyone else is just 3rd gen or barely 4th gen.

>>33333057
Can you explain the infrastructure thing in more detail?

>>33335798
>Eurofighter Typhoon
>Dassault Rafale
>Barely 4th gen
Okay

>>33335833
>Massive road construction programs in the 50s
>Bridges all designed to last~ 50 years
>70 years later they're all crumbling
>"lol we just don't have the money"
We're well north of 60,000 bridges in the US being found structurally deficient by engineers in the last five years, and no-one is doing anything about it.
Trump's talking a big game about infrastructure spending but the only government spending congress will approve is a $60bn hike in military spending.
So yeah the F-35's kind of a sore subject eith a lot of people.

>>33333057

The argument for the F-35 has a lot in common with infrastructure replacement though.

All those 4th gen aircraft are getting old now, and so they need to be replaced if the USA still wants combat aircraft. the trillions of dollars sensational headlines given as the "F-35 cost" ignores how much developing, buying and flying block 100++ F-16Cs and Extra Super F/A-18Es would cost over the next 50 years, which is what the baseline is.

File: 1426543812677.gif (151KB, 500x209px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 500x209px

>>33331735
because its essentially this generation's F-111

ill let you look up that, since you are obviously a moron

File: still-a-better-1997kr.jpg (78KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x600px

>>33331735

Retatds actually defend this low-tier nigger meme "jet".

File: 4eeb74b08a60aefca136887a8839f5acd821c54abbffe439f3a4f2f91b03e310.jpg (34KB, 316x355px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 316x355px

>>33333413

>Hitler
>US hands

Sure, kiddo.

>>33335856
>rafale
>cannot BVR
lmao go stick a baguette up your ass

Well, the fact that the F-35 should have been in full option for over 5 years doesn't help at all.

>>33333057

TL;DR It's because of a cost-plus contract.

>>33331735
>Why do retards constantly bash the F-35?
Because it's a huge, very visible program that's very open about its faults and thus easy to misconstrue as a bad thing. It has all these big numbers associated with it - $1.5 trillion, $100 million a plane - that look terrifying too the layman who doesn't have the context. Even better, it's an easy target. "Solutions" offered for the F-35 program tend to be some flavor of "cancel it."

Thus, for someone who wants to act like they know better than everyone else (or at least the government) bashing the F-35 is an easy way for them to do that. The F-35 is a much simpler issue than any of the real problems facing the military - things like
>The VA being so goddamn incompetent that veterans are pretty much expected to be reliant on charities to get by
>Endemic interservice bickering that's forced wasteful procurement in the past for no reason other than they can't be using "the other guy's" stuff

>>33332837
>Those f16s were dropping like flies
>Nicknamed the "lawn dart"
not the f16 you dodo

>>33340435
Are you a fucking retard?

Please don't correct people when you have no idea what you're talking about. The F-16 had major problems when it entered service, mainly due to issues with the engine, but also with a poorly designed tail.

>>33336033
Yeah, but the F-35's annual budget has been consistent since 2011, and for FY17 it's even gone down by a billion. Hell, Personnel costs are $20b more than procurement.

>>33339496
Unlike the F-111 the F-35 is a good aircraft from the start.

File: Sprey tears.jpg (27KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x360px

>>33339620

>>33340285
>F-35 has been under terms to deliver at or below cost or eat the overage since 2009.
>Has delivered every time under cost

>>33340435
>>33340485
up to 18 crashes a year in the '80s due to its faults.

>>33341695
>everyone i dont like is a shill
>>>/pol/

File: you-went-full-retard-never-go-full-retard.jpg (63KB, 554x376px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 554x376px

>>33341735
It's impressive how stupid you are.

>Calling you a Spreyposter is the same as a shill
>Pointing me to /pol/ when the image is of a moron who says stupid shit about aircraft

>>33331735
its an expensive piece of shit. between the a-10 being an ancient bullet magnet and this thing still breaking apart mid flight (while (((lockheed))) still has the balls to charge half as much as an aircraft carrier) we might as well not even have CAS anymore.
bonus, the only good plane to come out of lockheed as a whole in the last forty years is the F-22 all other lockheed planes are absolute shit and any future lockheed planes should be regarded as such

>>33341756
>everyone who disagrees with me is dumb
>>>/pol/ thats your home. now stay there

>>33341820
>this thing still breaking apart mid flight
Bullshit.
> still has the balls to charge half as much as an aircraft carrier
[Citation Needed]
>we might as well not even have CAS anymore.
You do know that CAS is generally done by everything in ways that make the A-10's gun pointless, right?
>the only good plane to come out of lockheed as a whole in the last forty years is the F-22 all other lockheed planes are absolute shit and any future lockheed planes should be regarded as such
Opinion discarded because retarded.


>>33341937
Still at it because you have no argument, huh?

And you're still completely misusing the posting tactic, kid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K_King_Stallion
why are we developing 120 million dollar helicopters when we can use 30 million dollar chinooks?

>>33339764
>J-20
>J-31
>Su-35
>Su-30
In addition to those yuro planes

File: 1438047148468.jpg (73KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 400x300px

>>33341820

>>33341987
the only people i have seen defending this miscarriage of a plane are autistic /k/ommando slaviboos. the thing is just one big defense project that will never see the light of day beyond sandy-land. the only reason it wasnt shot down in the drawing board was because lockheed's lobbyists wanted money. but you go on believing that this jack off all trades master of none money burner is good you go right ahead. the f-15 and f-18 does everything that flying death-trap could ever hope to

>>33339496
I don't know who's argument it helps, but it's probably worth mentioning that the F-35, unlike the F-111, isn't being thrown into combat against near-peer adversaries in difficult environmental conditions while it's kinks are still being worked out.

>>33342179
The F-35, unlike the F-111, isn't trying to fulfill roles that have contradictory design requirements.

It cost a trillion dollars and doesn't perform significantly better than the aircraft we already had.

A trillion dollars.

One trillion.

>>33342087
>>33342403
>waste of money hurr a trillion dollars!
That's a projected LIFETIME COST, including upgrades to engines, avionics, software, maintenance and overhauls, fuel, fucking everything. For FIFTY YEARS. This is significantly cheaper than the projected cost of using existing aircraft.
>deathtrap
The F35 has a stellar safety record. As mentioned in this thread, the fighting falcon had so many crashes (many which were fatal) it was nicknamed the "lawn dart". The F35 has had, what, a few engine fires during testing and LRIP?

>>33341689
The F-111 was a fine tactical bomber.

>>33341707

Not until at least batch 4 (2010), and then it recurred with certain components under batch 5. Not only were the engines on a cost plus basis as part of the contract for batch 5, but there was no attempt to competitively source other components.

It's not abilities, hilarious though the R&D phases have been. It's that the core of the problem is a perception that this is basically a jobs program for Lockheed. It might no longer be the case, but that's not OP's concern. It's that reputation of being pricey and takig forever that's still dragging it down publicly, despite the recent Red Flag trials for the Marines and Air Force.

Batch 4: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/22/AR2010092205673.html


Batch 5: www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/133433/f_35-unit-cost-tops-$200m--%3Ci%3E(updated)%3C%C2%A7i%3E.html

>>33342764
Eventually. It was pretty much a completete wreck when it entered service and derisively called the "Switchblade Edsel" because of McNamara's prior work with Ford and that awful car.

>>33343748
LRIP 4 was ~2009 and delivered at-target. 5 and on have all been delivered under target price.

>>33331735
As a Lockheed Martin employee, I find these threads truly hilarious.

1. We were just finishing getting the last platform (F-22) reliable and capable, but decided to cancel it for an unknown platform without finishing the production order or seeing about upgrades to it first.

2. It is more expensive than the last platform despite the cancellation of the last platform was because this was supposed to be better and cheaper (The offical claim is it's 93mil/aircraft, [low-production, without initial dev costs calculated], but is really around 150mil/aircraft with dev included
, so around the same price as an F-22.

3. Last platform and legacy aircraft can outperform it physically with less stress on the airframe, this means a shorter service-life with more maintenance excepted later on (seems to be a trend with the USAF, as the F117, F22, B1, and KC46 all require (Or will require if the 767 that the 46 is base on is any indication versus the 707) more maintenance than their replacements.

3. Lower visibility according to test pilots for the F35 compared to the F22 and legacy aircraft

4. Total Redesigns of the A and C version were done for production of the B version, creating cost over-runs and limiting the capabilities of the A. (this has been fully admitted by LH themselves.

4. STOVL variant has extremely limited range in stealth config to where it can not be expected to actively operate in combat radius past ship-to-ship missles without a large portion requiring immediate AAR or not being able to return to carrier.

5. Being designed for LHD's not designed to deal with the stresses of direct low-bypass engines being dumped on decks and none of this being taking into consideration beforehand

6. Making an unproven platform the largest acquisition of aircraft (AGAIN) after such issues with the F-104 and F-4.

The F-35 is a case study of everything wrong with military acquisitions. LH and BOEING should have been forced to build 100% ready to fly examples ready to be produced before the JSF victor was decided.

>>33344071
>the F-22 was cancelled because of the F-35
F-22 orders were reduced because Congress are Jews and also because MRAPs were needed instead.
>The price of the JSF program is higher than that of the ATF program
Price per aircraft including development is still cheaper than the F-22 and will drastically be reduced once the aircraft has been in FRP for a decade or so, but unit cost including development is retarded for that reason anyway. F-35 is about as expensive as any decent 4.5gen aircraft
>legacy aircraft perform better with less airframe fatigue and easier maintance
Blatantly false, not a single airframe that the F-35 is directly replacing in role performs better. BFM is less important than BVR. Please stop spouting meme-tier "Vietnam experience" garbage. Explain how they're better nigga.
>Lower visibility
mainly due to helmet issues, fairly valid criticism but definately not something that invalidates the jets performance. Also DAS exists
>total redesigns of the A and C to compromise performance in exchange for the B
When? 2002?
>F-35B has limited range
It has much better range than the Harrier, which it's replacing.
>the decks
Already fixed, very minor issue.
>issues with the F-104 or F-4
Please elaborate


>bringing up Boeing when talking about ready to fly JSF examples
wew lad.

That's not how these competitions have ever worked, quit being retarded. The requirements were also altered after the competition.

>>33344071

> so around the same price as an F-22.

150 is the flyaway for F-22, with dev costs that balloons to about 250 mil, since the cost of development is amortized over so few frames.

>>33344411
fly away for the F22 had the dev cost integrated/ That was the whole point of the F35, that it wouldnt be as expensive as the fucked up devolped ment as the F22 (which is partially at fault of the clinton admin).

So yeah F22 is not another 100mil/aircraft. It was at ~150mil when they stopped producing.

For the record, I was never 10% against the F35, but the DoD has lied about a bunch of shit with it, and fucked up a lot of shit with the procurement procedure.

Which is why I as a guy who is stuck with 235's is scared shitless of what the 46 is suppossed to bring. Because my unit is one of the earlier adapters. We could easily become one of the worse operational units in the entire fucking guard because of the lack of reliability.

The F35 (or boeing F32) would have been a GREAT support light weight fighter replacement for the F16. But DoD wants too much and fucked up the procedure for acquisition to where we are facing a lot of problem that could have been avoided.

>>33344071
>everything here is wrong

Impressive

>>33344357
>>F-22 orders were reduced because Congress are Jews and also because MRAPs were needed instead.
>> Because DEMS can't into war, and realize a platform can be upgraded to last longer than it's initial desing

>>>Blatantly false, not a single airframe that the F-35 is directly replacing in role performs better. BFM is less important than BVR. Please stop spouting meme-tier "Vietnam experience" garbage. Explain how they're better nigga.

Nope. JSF no longer counts Dev costs like the ATF did, when those are counted for it costs more at fly away than the F22 did with inflation.


>legacy aircraft perform better with less airframe fatigue and easier maintance
Also where did I spout vietnam? oh wait I didn't.
And yes BFV is more improtant than BFM. But only until BFV is still existant. Once BFM exists, it becomes important, and if aircraft are cracking their airframes from over-g'ing, they are out of operation. PER-I-FUCKING-IOD.

BTW Yes, the F15C and F16 could both sustian higher G Forces with less strain that test beds of the A model have shown

>>When? 2002?
Still to today? Also delaying more than a decade of dev for a failed idea (as you have proven since no STOVL platform has overcome the issues of STS missle range) proves the stupidity of out bureaucratic DOD

>>Please elaborate
Both the F-104 and F-4 were designed with the idea of multi-role one shoe fits all solutions that failed horribly. The F-26 was the closest we got to sucess, and even that was met with so much bullshit.

I'm not against the entire existance of the F-35. I fully Believe the F-35A would have been a great multi-role support asset to the F-22. And that the C variant would give added low detection assets that the navy needed alongside the the superhornet, especially in ASH config. But the one-shoe fits all direction, along with a idiotic unwaivering demand for a STOVL variant, and idiotic views of saving money but having the same solution. continued-

>>33344830
continued- doomed the project to unnecessary problems.

I'm guessing you are a LH employee (without connections to the JSF project) or someone who is just a fan boy, since these are real problems that have plagued LH according to friends who now work with them in the F-35 project and train new USAF crew chiefs on them.

>>33331735
Much of it is ass annihilated russians who are rustled over how their military is left in the dust and how their empire is now on the trash heap of history.
There is also a lot of chink shills desperately trying to shitpost away the fact that one carrier group in the S. China Sea is more powerful than the collected Chinese forces in the area.

>>33335833
Can you Google "infrastructure", retard?

>>33332901
what are you gonna to about it boy live in a forest with your libertarian friends and kill each other over the last can of beans? The US is a superpower and the only way it's going to stay a superpower is foreign intervention. Suck it up and if you hate that fact so much go and live in Brazil or Mexico

I hate the F-35's aesthetics. It's this fat tubby little jet that looks like it's topped with roofing tar and cardboard. Look at that shit in the OP! Look at it! It looks disgusting.

It's far and away the scariest jet on the planet as far as capabilities go, but it's like the plane equivalent, I dunno, an accountant circa 1925 who just happens to know exactly how to field-strip a machine gun and set up the kill box because that's what was done in The Big One.

>>33344949
>meanwhile another 50 gorillion taxpayer dollars paid to Lockheed Martin

>>33345826

I'd rather give tax dollars to Lockheed or Boeing than Jaime and Shaneequa.

>>33331735
>Is it because "muh tax dollarydoos could be paying for [random bullshit]"?

The F35 is way over budget bro, it's a trillion dollar program at this point

totally out of control

>>33344830
The STVOL F-35 did not hamper the design of the other two planes at all.

If you knew a god damn thing about the differences, and the requirements of the planes in question, you would know why.

Furthermore, the F-35B is not only a fantastic choice for the harrier replacement, it is a strategic necessity.

>>33345845

A trillion dollars to build a platform that we're going to be using continuously for the next fifty years? That's pocket change.

File: 1421620088186.jpg (43KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 720x960px

>>33331735

it's comically over budget

Its overall lifetime budget has ballooned to more than $1.5 trillion, making it the most expensive weapons system ever built by the US.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-500-million-f35-2016-11

had it come in on budget nobody would be bitching, it was originally supposed to cost 400 billion.

The ridiculous mismanagement and spending a trillion (that's 1000 billion) dollars over budget is why people complain. That money could pay for the healthcare of every american for like 10 years or fund NASA for 50 years

it's beyond a clusterfuck, it's the biggest over budget project in the history of the USA. Most nations don't have a trillion dollar GDP and we pissed that much money away funding a jet

>>33345870
Whats the F-16s lifetime cost?

>>33340424
>Because it's a huge, very visible program that's very open about its faults and thus easy to misconstrue as a bad thing. It has all these big numbers associated with it - $1.5 trillion, $100 million a plane - that look terrifying too the layman who doesn't have the context.

it was supposed to cost 400 billion and be done 5 years ago

the context is it's a cluster fuck

>>33342580
>That's a projected LIFETIME COST,

the projected LIFETIME COST was at first 400 billion dollars, now it's 5 years behind schedule and the LIFETIME COST is projected at 1.4 trillion dollars, and that number will likely go up

>>33345868
>A trillion dollars to build a platform that we're going to be using continuously for the next fifty years? That's pocket change.

it's really not though, and the number keeps going up

the original budget was 400 billion, had they stuck to that and not delayed the project half a decade while demanding another trillion dollars nobody would be bitching

it will probably be 2.5 trillion by the time all is said and done

>>33345927

2.5 trillion to build a platform that will see use until 2067 (likely closer to 2080) is still 40 bn/year

>>33345901
That would put each airframe total(r&d incl) cost at 1.4 million.

That's a fucking pipe dream anon.

>>33345876

Number built 4,573 (July 2016)[1]
Unit cost
F-16A/B: US$14.6 million (1998)[2]
F-16C/D: US$18.8 million (1998)[

>>33345933

don't let contractors lie then give them a trillion extra dollars when they fuck up

problem solved

>>33345931

what a bargain

i wonder why this cost savings program was not planned from the begining

>>33345934
Unit plus number built is not lifetime costs, not does it account for inflation.

>>33345943

>40 billion out of the annual 2,200 billion budget is a lot

t. a retard

>>33345939
>there was unforeseen r&d difficultys designing and making the world's most advanced jet, along with an increase in needed capabilities (mission growth)

>DEY LIED

Normie. Get the fuck off my board.

>>33345933
>That would put each airframe total(r&d incl) cost at 1.4 million.

no,

400billion divided by 2500 is 160 million per aircraft (or the cost of 10 F16s)

plenty doable

>>33345949

that's twice NASA's budget for one airframe, yeah it's a lot

right now we are at $560,000,000 per fucking airframe and it's no doubt going to go up as they are still be hind schedule and having huge problems

that's half the price of an aircraft carrier, per airframe

>>33331735
Why do retards constantly lick Lockmart ass? It is because they are paid Lockmart shills? Piss off, Lockmart shill.

>biggest cost over run in US history for any project ever undertaken
>no big deal

File: 3 inches.jpg (32KB, 255x347px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 255x347px

>>33332837

File: 4299941-1419641297037.jpg (26KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x375px

>>33345964

>R&D costs are amortized on a per-unit basis and not over the lifespan of the program
>The R&D conducted to develop the F-35 is only used for the F-35

>>33345956
2500 was not the original bid, it was 2866.

Apologize. :^)

>>33345976

Amortized cost of half a billion dollars per airplane when it was promised at 1/3 that?

that is a lot desu desu

>>33345978

so sorry senpai, barely changes the amount per plane though

>it's OK LM raped us for a trillion dollars because reasons

shills pls go

>>33345982
>yfw the government rebid the program, by itself, when they realized they set the bar to low

It was a pipe dream.

>>33345985
Yeah, it changes it to 140 million. ( no idea why i said 1.4)

Still impossible. Fly away unit cost for new f-16s is 100 mil

>>33345993

was promised on time delivery a pipe dream too?

half a billion dollars per aircraft

it could be done cheaper

>>33333437
Lels

>>33346003
>Yeah, it changes it to 140 million. ( no idea why i said 1.4)
>Still impossible. Fly away unit cost for new f-16s is 100 mil

why is it impossible for a new aircraft to only cost 40% more than the one it is replacing instead of 500% more?

>>33345982

You don't amortize development costs on a unit basis, you do it on the expected length of the program. Stop practicing shitty accounting.

>>33346011
Integratation of assets normally left to specialized variants of last gen airframe, along with power curve.

>>33346028

The length of the program will also probably not work out as expected or promised since nothing else about the program has been delivered as promised or with the correct timeframe

>>33346029
>Integratation of assets normally left to specialized variants of last gen airframe, along with power curve.

It could have been done for say 200mil per plane, or 300mil, but 500mil is outrageous, it's just pork for LM

>>33346034

Maybe, but you're not even amortizing over a shortened program duration, you're just literally doing it wrong.

1.4 trillion is more than the value of all Apple and Google stock put together

It's more than the value of all the gold at Ft Knox

it's outrageous

>>33346037
Nope, I could not disagree more.

You don't get the best of everything without a premium price.

Even the J-20, using legacy tech, is sitting at 110 mil fly away lrip.

>>33346046
>value of a here and now company Vs half a fucking century.

Retard.

>>33346046

OK with a cost overrun of 1,000,000,000 and still being fucking years late on delivery of the promised system

fucking retard

>>33345934
Great. Now find the numbers for
>fuel
>maintenance
>weapons expended in training
>training pilots
>and everything else needet to use the F16 for the next 40-50 years

THEN you can compare that number to the "1,5 gorillion dollarooos" cited for the LIFETIME costs of the F-35 program, all above included.

>>33346046
i swear half the people on this site is retarded when it comes to understanding simple economics

>>33346084
>i swear half the people on this site is retarded when it comes to understanding simple economics

I guess simple economics let's some contractor get 5 years behind schedule and ramp up the cost by a trillion dollars and simple economics dictates we are not getting fucking hosed by incompetence and pork barrel spending via that company

>>33346096
B-b-b-but its for the military.

File: 1489586341038.jpg (58KB, 612x841px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 612x841px

>>33345868
>50 years
Make that 25 brah

>>33346140

Even at 25 years you could fund it by cutting 1% from Medicare/Medicaid each year.

>>33346151
>Even at 25 years you could fund it by cutting 1% from Medicare/Medicaid each year.

let's cut medicare because LM jewed us into a trillion dollar over run on one fucking jet

File: thinking-face.png (53KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 256x256px

>>33346172

>Medicare is such a flawless system, less than 1% of its budget is lost to waste

>>33346183

>the F-35 is such a flawless system that 1000billion dollars has been lost to waste

>>33343908

4 was delivered at target price because it was explicitly a fixed-cost contract. Holy fuck anon, are you retarded, unable to follow a simple link, or a Lockheed shill?

See damn near every post pointing out its budget issues in this thread. All we've seen from you is

>nuh uh
>not it was under budget
>deny deny deny

Fucking put up or shut up, anon.

>>33346140
F-16's pushing 40 and won't be replaced entirely for a while.

25 years is deluded.

>>33344830
>Because DEMS can't into war, and realize a platform can be upgraded to last longer than it's initial desing
You do realize that happened during Bush's term, right?

>Both the F-104 and F-4 were designed with the idea of multi-role one shoe fits all solutions that failed horribly.
You're a complete idiot if you think the F-4 was bad at its jobs.

File: F35 deal.gif (3MB, 636x350px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 636x350px

>>33345824
You have a right to have wrong opinions, I guess.

>>33345870
Meanwhile, in reality, service cost of the F-16, F/A-18C/D, and AV-8B out past 2065 would be over $4t.

>>33345890
>>33345927
>Projections from before the JSF fly-off even happened
>Program total cost so far is closer to $300b

File: 70show_RedForman.jpg (20KB, 375x333px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 375x333px

>>33345992
>Implying the trillion has been spent and isn't a 50-year guesstimate
>Implying all of it is going to LM

>>33346034
>nothing else about the program has been delivered as promised or with the correct timeframe
Every LRIP has delivered on-time. IOCs are happening on-schedule. Stop using the time frame developed before the JSF even flew or the DoD tacked on the advanced technology concurrent development.

>>33346067
>fucking retard
Says the moron still claiming the trillion is money spent.

>>33346096
>I guess simple economics let's some contractor get 5 years behind schedule and ramp up the cost by a trillion dollars and simple economics dictates we are not getting fucking hosed by incompetence and pork barrel spending via that company
NOT. MONEY. SPENT.

"5 years late" is just a stupid platitude.

LM has to deliver under target cost or eat the overage.

>>33346140
https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/06/27/massive-cost-estimate-for-fighter-program-is-misleading/#730498a56625

Nope, 50.

>>33346390
The very false claim was made that LM is delivering over cost. And they've been delivering under target in 5 and on. Just because you're wrong you shouldn't go into damage control mode.

>>33346605
>LM has to deliver under target cost or eat the overage.

has not been the case so far

>>33346598
>Says the moron still claiming the trillion is money spent.

oh it's free money we are not going to spend

logic

>>33346638
Uh, yes, it has. As of LRIP-4 and forward if they can't build under the target price they have to eat the overage. Period.

Though I guess since they've delivered at or under target since that was put in place then technically, no, they haven't had to eat overages yet.

>>33346643
And if the F-35 didn't enter service, by the same calculations current planes would cost $4t. Stop misrepresenting it.

>>33341683
Still a lot of money for a expensive rip off
(((Lockheed)))

>>33347169
>I don't know what I'm talking about so I'll just parrot other idiots and use a /pol/-tier anti-joo dogwhistle

>>33347226
Not a argument

>>33347169
I guess when you've run out of arguments, all you've got are punctuation marks.

>>33347236
Your post wasn't either, it was just a load of horseshit.

File: 1489130205539.gif (2MB, 178x120px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 178x120px

>>33347247
>>33347250

>>33347294
Nope, you are, otherwise you wouldn't be shitposting lies about the F-35.

>>33347317
What lies?

>>33347328
>Still a lot of money for a expensive rip off

>>33347486
But it is
The Russians can do better with less tech and at a quarter of the price.

But yeah what do I know,let's just let the military industrial complex tells is what we need to spend it money on

The plane isn't the problem, its the people behind it

>>33346643
1 trillion dollars for an entire program over the next 40 years is a great deal you nigger.

It would have cost 4X that if we had just kept our legacy fighters. Lifetime cost had never been analyzed before so it seems like a lot.

The number is also in 2050 dollars, so inflation makes it seem much larger than it actually is.

Quit being so fucking retarded, the programs has cost us about $400B and the hard parts of development are over. The price will continue to go down as more airframes are produced.


You're not making any sense when you say that it costs half a billion per airframe, nobody measures unit pricing like that because it's misleading.

>the Russians can do better

Ah yes, the incredible PAKFA
>doesn't meat 5th gen criteria
>not VLO
>orders have been reduced
>engines still not developed
>India has gotten cold feet because it's shit
>was supposed to have 50 by next year, will be lucky if they have 1/5th of that

It will probably be cancelled or the numbers reduced so much that it has no effect on Russia's capabilities.

But it can do backflips it air shows so retards like you will probably think it's the best thing since sliced potato.

>>33347538
>The Russians can do better with less tech and at a quarter of the price.
No, they aren't.

File: 1479245156740.webm (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>33347611
>pakfa

I was talking about how russkies can send a aircraft carrier from the 80's and do a spanking good job at fucking Isis

They don't need overly expensive high-tech shenanigans get the job done

But enlighten me,why is the f35 the best thing ever conceived?
Will this jet server as the personal air force for the Islamist state?

Surely it cant be just another endless money hole,right?
>But it can do backflips it air shows

>>33347829

>aircraft carrier from the 80's and do a spanking good job at fucking Isis

You mean the same aircraft carrier that proved to be so dangerous they moved the aircraft onto a land-based air field instead?

>>33347829
>I was talking about how russkies can send a aircraft carrier from the 80's and do a spanking good job at fucking Isis
You mean the one they kept having to tow back to port and decided was unsafe to continue aviation ops from after several crashes on the one deployment?

And no, they weren't really doing much against ISIS, they were carpet bombing Assad's enemies.

>But enlighten me,why is the f35 the best thing ever conceived?
A fighter that fits US doctrine perfectly, is superior to everything it replaces, is a generation ahead of what everyone else is building, AND costs less than current Eurocanards?

>Will this jet server as the personal air force for the Islamist state?
You're an idiot.

>Surely it cant be just another endless money hole,right?
It's not.

File: f35hangar.jpg (133KB, 1367x1692px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1367x1692px

>>33347885
>Assad's enemies
Yes Isis


>A fighter that fits US doctrine perfectly, is superior to everything it, is a generation ahead of what everyone else is building, AND costs less

Proof,I heard other jets still out perform it

>your a idiot
But it's true


>>Surely it cant be just another endless money hole,right?
>It's not.
it is

>>33347937
You are definitely a troll. Because I refuse to believe it is possible to be this stupid.

>>33347829

Such a good job at beating ISIS, that after losing Russian lives taking Palmyra, they lost it again because they were too busy bombing not-ISIS in Aleppo.

>>33347829
>kuznetsov
>good at anything
>russian aircraft
>cheap

let me know how those 3 full engine replacements and continual heavy maintenance go

>>33347878
The one that lost two aircraft just in normal landing operations.

File: Y5rk48j.png (800KB, 800x1131px) Image search: [Google]

800KB, 800x1131px

>>33331735
Some people are just haters.

File: sopranos bait.jpg (205KB, 930x794px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 930x794px

>>33333057
>People bash the F-35 for many different reasons, and not all who do so are retarded.
This trainwreck of a thread proves that yes, they are.

>>33331735
Because it has too many compromises to excel. History shows us the results of that.
The LM shills want everyone to believe the brochures. Everyone in the real world knows better.
Why do you care what others think? Because you are a shill for Lockheed.

The F-35 is considered as a Baby Seal everywhere other the n USA.

It is a Suposent Job creator and not a fighting Machine.

>>33342764
But it was supposed to be a fighter for the USN and USAF.

It creates Heat and blocks light.

Stealth technology is 90's it also makes a shape against existing ground making it detectable to Drop down satalites.

Stealth is yesturdayd news.

>>33351206
>>33351094
>>33351057
These are the retards that hate it.

Please take notice of the broken English

Please do not take notice to blah blah lala stupid .

>>33347937
Not the other guy but....
>Yes Isis
No, Russia flew a few missions against ISIS to be able to say, "Look we're helping too." despite the fact that they missed many of their targets and they had to use some weird metric to make it appear they flew more missions than they did.

>>33347937
Well then you heard wrong. It flew so well at Red Flag this years that they had to re-invent the mission parameters because after the F-35s entered the battlespace, all the other aircraft including AWACS would be rendered useless.

>But it's true
What does this mean, does that mean it's being sold to the Islamic State or its being sold to US allies that are predominantly Islamic (Turkey)?

>it is
It's not, that is reserved for the PAK-FA which despite being way less capable, has hemoraged money from both Russia and India with no return in usable air frames.
You people are just jelly that the US has two 5ht Gen aircraft and Russia and China are floundering with their 4.9 Gens.

>>33351094
And in reality, the F-35 is the club carrier and 4/4.5 Gens are the baby seals.

Generic response

File: 1454715722697.jpg (2MB, 5616x3744px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5616x3744px

>>33331735
This blurjob is fucking terrible. You can literally see where they dragged their mouse.

Because it's social posturing against government waste for the uninformed.

the F-35 still sucks.

>>33352386
t. Retard

>>33351328
Great rebuttal!
(not)

You and me F35 against against Mig 35 in 2 years.

You can target my kidneys, but I can target Your.

Mig-21 VS F-16 Lets do this again...

>>33343931
enlighten us

>>33352460
Maybe if something of substance was actually argued instead of:
>I don't know how radar works so that means stealth is obsolete
>Foreigners that can't afford it don't like it
>Its design made compromises that I refuse to list, u r a shill fgt

All in that order.


You're retarded, probably foreign, and completely incapable of doing your own research on the aircraft that doesn't involve a source that's your local propaganda dispensary.


Pilots love it.

It's performed extremely well in all military exercises (Red Flag, Mountain Home exercises, and Green Flag)

It costs less than inferior 4th gen Eurocanards, and it decreases with every batch.


Kill yourself.

>>33352620
BTFO

How do You say in English.

"Bait"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4-T8HoO90k

>>33332727
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APuYyfq12ts

>>33332727
>Pappy Boyington puts in a lot of work and consistently lands Corsairs on carriers
>Forced to fly off islands in the Pacific war because the Navy are pussies

k

>>33353562
Damn, those look mean waiting on the cats.

>>33353562
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32T_YH2CQWI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LIsv9LJPfU

>>33331735
The program was an absolute shitshow, reminiscent of the F-111 program.

Sure, it's created a moderately capable 5th gen fighter, but for the ridiculous cost of development and production, it isn't where I'd thought it would be.

File: parrot[1].png (3MB, 1487x1500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1487x1500px

>>33355088

I went to the air show today, and they had one of each of them on display, shit was bretty cash.

>>33331735
Because it is expensive for what it really is.

It was promised to be a stealth F-16 with fancy sensors. Its a stealth A-7 with fancy sensors. Fancy sensors that could have been adapted to legacy platforms.

Sure, the cost is the estimated lifetime projected cost. But do you really think that includes upgrades? Obviously, its EW suite will need to be updated every 10 years or so. As other systems advance, they will need to be redone as well. Are those costs factored in? I highly doubt it. I do get LM credit for bringing the cost back down over the past couple years though.

Its wasteful. I can see a common airframe for USAF runways and USN carriers. I cannot fathom why the F-35B was deemed necessary.

Its slow. I'm not talking about airspeed. I mean its slow. I remember the first talk of this thing in the late 90s. I remember the X-32 and X-35 fly off. This thing was supposed to be in service by 2010 or 2012, but kept getting pushed back due to glitches and delays. All of which pushed the price up higher.

>>33333437
As for the F-16, it eventually evolved into what it is now, which is far from its original intent. And it had 2 competitors.

YF-17, which eventually became the F/A-18 became a competent peer before the F-16 reached a stable maturity.

F-20 offered similar performance at a lower cost. The biggest factor for it losing out was because F-16 had a common engine with F-15.

>>33335856
What nations employing these aircraft are F-35 buyers likely to go to war with?

>>33339496
Also this. F-111 eventually turned out OK, but it was not what it was intended to be. F-111 was a plane that found its niche, not a plane built to fit a niche. F-35 will likely have a similar outcome, becoming a precision strike aircraft and sensor aircraft.

>>33357218
>I only read headlines of clickbait

>>33357218
>Because it is expensive for what it really is.
U wot?

It costs far less than 4.5 Gen contremporaries.

>It was promised to be a stealth F-16 with fancy sensors. Its a stealth A-7 with fancy sensors. Fancy sensors that could have been adapted to legacy platforms.
A-7s can't do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWHHuLILs0
And yeah, sure, they COULD keep strapping on pods to old planes, but that doesn't include the sensor fusion, and no, I don't think they could integrate the Barracuda into an F-16.

>But do you really think that includes upgrades?
Yes.

>Its wasteful. I can see a common airframe for USAF runways and USN carriers. I cannot fathom why the F-35B was deemed necessary.
Because the Marines need a Harrier replacement, and the B was built by modifying the A's design.

>As for the F-16, it eventually evolved into what it is now, which is far from its original intent. And it had 2 competitors.
Not that much, the F-16A was a multi-role fighter bomber from the start. The YF-16 was the daylight dogfighter it was based on.

>F-20 offered similar performance at a lower cost. The biggest factor for it losing out was because F-16 had a common engine with F-15.
lolno. The F-20 was an unsolicted F-5 upgrade with wimpy capabilities and severe payload restrictions due to its low-slung wings.

>What nations employing these aircraft are F-35 buyers likely to go to war with?
F-35 Buyers are complimenting them.

>F-35 will likely have a similar outcome, becoming a precision strike aircraft and sensor aircraft.
You mean exactly what it was meant to be, that recent exercises have also proved it can do Air to Air extremely well too?

File: 1470522284424.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>33344071
Coudl you or someone answer me one question?
I've seen, in some years back documentary about the f35, that in some kind of virtual exercise agains china or russian air force the f35 would either be in sufficient numbers and capable enough to down enough planes or run for reruns.

How true is that?
(sorry couldn't find the doc/part where it was said, though i think it was an aussie documentary about the f35 program)

>>33358249
I'm trying to figure out what the fuck you're asking here.

>>33358249
Also, that guy you replied to is completely full of shit.

File: rand study.jpg (193KB, 1146x770px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1146x770px

>>33358249
you are referring to fake news

>>33344830
>Both the F-104 and F-4 were designed with the idea of multi-role one shoe fits all solutions that failed horribly.

are you fucking joking m8

>F-104 - the sort of single mission light weight fighter that Pierre Sprey would jizz himself over

>F-4 - dedicated long range interceptor which received most of its multi-role capability as additional rather than having it built in at the start
>Extremely successful once pilots were actually trained to use their missiles properly (US Navy Operation Linebacker KD was 7:1 without a gun installed)
>Used by several nations and remained one of the premier fighters in its class even after replacement with the F-15

File: Tu-22M.jpg (332KB, 1280x865px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1280x865px

>>33358621
thanks for answering

>>33358844
>Used by several nations and remained one of the premier fighters in its class even after replacement with the F-15
Hell, 5 countries are still flying them.

>>33331735
Because it's easy saying a prototype has issues.