>F-22 program cost: 66 billion >F-35 program cost: 1.5

>tfw no F/B-22

Why even have an air force?

File: D7jQPr8.jpg (146KB, 640x720px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 640x720px

>In March 2013, USAF test pilots, flying with pre-operational software that did not utilize the all-aspect infrared AAQ-37 DAS sensor, noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during evaluation flights, which would get them consistently shot down in combat. Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler concluded from flight evaluation reports that the F-35A "is flawed beyond redemption";[196] in response, program manager Bogdan suggested that pilots worried about being shot down should fly cargo aircraft instead.[197]

>>33688058
>F-22 program: 197 show ponies
>F-35 program: 2,443 workhorses

>>33688127

>2443 aircraft
>implying

This is what Lockheedboos believe

File: image.gif (52KB, 117x117px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 117x117px

>>33688058
>program cost
vs
>program cost/unit cost/operating cost/maintance cost/cost of future upgrades all for the next 50 years for 2400 airframes

hmmmm really makes you think


Kill yourself for making such a shit thread

>>33688121
>flying with pre-operational software that did not utilize the all-aspect infrared AAQ-37 DAS sensor

:thinking:

File: ABC.jpg (1MB, 2132x2866px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2132x2866px

>>33688261
not to mention it's for 3 different variants, people like to overlook this.

>>33688058
OP has no idea what his numbers are from, let alone if they are an apples to apples comparison.

>>33688261
>>33688410

Government contractor apologists

Projected cost is includes the cost of correcting all the glaring flaws of the core design. Meanwhile this pile of shit has yet to fly a single combat mission

Also lel at people who seriously think the United States will still exist 50 years from now

>>33688058
>Implying we didn't want to just keep the A-10 "Flying Gun"

What is it about the F-35 in particular that causes so much autistic shrieking from know nothing retards?

Is it just butthurt slavs, chinks, and other 3rd worlders desperately attempting psyops to squash a program before the fruits of said program push their shithole air forces even further toward complete obsolescence?

>>33688187
>$1.5 trillion
>This is what Spreyfags actually believe

>>33688379
FUCK THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX THAT MONWY COULD BE FREE HEALTH CARE'N SHIT REEEEEEEE

>>33688600
Projected cost to correct all flaws in over 200 aircraft is <$2 billion.

>>33688600
>Projected cost is includes the cost of correcting all the glaring flaws of the core design
You mean like every product that ever hit the market

>>33688121
>Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler
Into the trash it goes

>Trump literally cut the budget for it in an instant.
>Nothing changed.

>>33688058

The JSF budget isn't an Air Force problem; it's a Marine problem.

Ironically, this clusterfuck was in a sense presaged by the challenges that plagued the Space Shuttle program, which WAS an Air Force problem.

Why didn't we just make more F-22s?

>>33690065
>F-35 having its budget cut
>This reality

>>33688600
If the USG had asked for a low spec aircraft, the development and unit cost would be low.

Go jerk off to the OAX $20m crop duster competition if you can't wrap your mind around the JSF requirements.

File: 1470672908469.jpg (181KB, 1842x1074px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1842x1074px

>>33688600
>Fuck I look like a retard!

Some major autist on /m/ is arguing about how the f-50 being shit is just a big lie and he posted this jewtubevideo. Is he right? The points being made are quite alright, so why again does the Pak Fa get shitted on so much?

https://youtu.be/scJnps0RErg

>>33688058
No we won't. That was the biggest waste of money.

>>33691569
>defend my video

Do a better job and actually debunk things next time.

>>33688058
The money from the f-35 program should have gone to improve quality of life in the army, marines, coast guard, and navy

>>33688058
Two different measurement here, fuckwad. The first one only accounts for the development costs, and the second one accounts for all development, acquisition and maintenance all the way to 2040.

>>33688261
Is the F-22 program cost adjusted for inflation

>>33691569
>so why again does the Pak Fa get shitted on so much?

In my shitty opinion, the Russians should focus more on upgrading existing aircraft instead trying to build a brand new stealth plane from the ground up, especially considering their budget and economy

>>33691725
It wouldn't be the first time the russains made something better then the US with a literal shit tier budget. They also cucked out india from the project, so they will be saving a lot of moneys.

File: 1491946472681.png (161KB, 433x484px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 433x484px

>>33691569
>>33691913
>being so butthurt about being absolutely BTFO by /m/ that you resort to trying to get /k/ to agree with you

>>33691913
>It wouldn't be the first time the russains made something better then the US with a literal shit tier budget.

Yes it would.

>>33691569
2 words

>slavshit
>good

>>33691937
Oy vey, i sure got btfo by proving people wrong. I'm so butthurt, it's almost like i can not comprehend why people want to listen to american propaganda. No, keep on being delusional and we will see what the real result will be. I certainly am going to enjoy the magnificient day where you will be forced to realise that the butthurt anon has been right all along.

>>33688683

It's different, that's why. We went through the same shit with the V-22 in the early 00s and we will go through it all again with the B-21 procurement.

>>33692056
>american """"""""""education""""""""""

>>33692149
yeah, you're butthurt alright

File: Bullshit.png (113KB, 658x125px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 658x125px

>>33691569
>Thrust to weight is good!
>Good climb rate!
>Other 4th gen-teir measurements of performance!
>New engines are supposed to keep up with the advancing airframes of the next 30 years, not catch up with existing ones! (What the fuck does that even mean?)

>Same dribble about how radar blockers are just as VLO as S-ducts.
>We have good stealth shaping and we have RAM!
>doesn't mention that, due to lack of experience and funding, Russia's RAM is most likely generations behind the US's.
>The CIRCLULAR irst turns backwards when not in use!
>That whole bit about how comparing the statements released for the PAK FA's RCS to the statements and estimates of western aircraft aren't fair because of some very simplistic RCS simulations i have!
>source for the F-22's RCS is the designer of the PAK FA who even admits that the F-22 has an RCS half that of the PAK FA.

This fucking graph, pic related, is enough to show how fucking stupid this video is.

>The avionics are good because cheek arrays! Ground mapping! AtG capability!
>IRST can detect fighters at 100km!
From the rear maybe

>Russian RWRs
>Not shit
Pick one

>It has AI!
>We don't know know what that means, but it has it!

>We're only buying 12 because we're poor! Not because it's an incapable aircraft!
>Ummm, India getting cold feet isn't brought up because I don't think it's important!! It's not like they're avoiding the aircraft because it's bad or anything!
Here's what you need to know about the PAK FA
>Less money for development than either the US or China.
>Built by people with less experience in VLO than the US, less resources than China
>Orders being cut left and right, delivery dates constantly being pushed back.
>India shows less and less optimism about the joint-project. Funding is barely trickling in.
and finally
NO S-DUCTS
O

S
|
D
U
C
T
S

>>33692235
>whatever-shit-hole-you-come-from's education
The USSR had a massive military budget until it collapsed. "Russia" has only had a shit tier budget for the last 3 decades, and hasn't produced anything better, let alone equal to, the US.

>>33692283
You are the first person to make actual arguments, thanks. It is good to see the response for evalution of the new direction some things should take. I do understand your worries but in time we will see how much the beloved s duct meme is really worth.

>>33692345
>his education is so low he can't even memearrow

File: absolutely disgusting.jpg (35KB, 262x351px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 262x351px

>>33692420
>being butthurt because your argument was dumb

File: 1378619566181.gif (1MB, 250x141px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x141px

>>33690065
>Trump literally cut the budget for it in an instant.
>Trump
Sure he did...

>>33691656
This
F-35 haters are so fucking manipulative that they literally do everything humanly possible to make it seem more expensive than it is, including but not limiting to citing money we haven't even spent yet in then-year dollars with the most pessimistic projections of inflation.

>>33692469
>y-you're just butthurt

Not my fault you weren' t properly educated, senpai.

>>33692367
Things to know.

>The US has used radar blockers in the past, but for some reason has favored S-ducts in all newer airframes deemed VLO (F-22, B-2, F-35, and probably B-21 all utilize S-ducts in their design).
>ATDX, J-20, and probably J-31 have s-ducts.
>PAK FA doesn't
hmmmmmm

>>33692367
>You are the first person to make actual arguments

Odd how you never responded to the ones made in the /m/ thread.

>>33692523
I like how you are not denying that your argument was dumb.

File: 1475021566719.jpg (39KB, 500x640px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x640px

>>33692523
(You)

>>33692560
Here, my argument was not dumb. Satisfied? You low iq folks really are clingy aren't you. Did you know that 99% of emotionally weak people are less intelligent then the average emotionally stable person?.

>>33688058
>F-22 is money spent for 187 planes
>F-35 is 50 year total estimate for 2443

>>33688121
>2013

>>33692560
Weird huh, almost like i thought those "arguments" weren't worth replying to. No really, what DID i mean by that?

Can you retarded negrons go 5 minutes without slinging shit at each other over the F-35?

File: 1441160372595.jpg (50KB, 498x550px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 498x550px

>>33692708
>>33692672

They should buy more than 2400 F-35's

>>33692824
Imagine the REEEEEEEEEEing from Spreyfags


let's build 10,000

>>33688121
>>33692699
And since that day no pilot dared to criticize the program or they'd be assigned to cargo plane duty

File: image.gif (899KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 600x600px

>>33693967
Wow anon, that sure is an astute observation! Is there any chance you could back up that claim with a little bit of evidence? Thanks a lot!

>>33692718
>Can you retarded negrons go 5 minutes without slinging shit at each other over the F-35?
No, a version of this thread is posted daily. If it doesn't exist, it's made. If it does exist, it's usually remade anyway.

It's cancer.

>>33688058
Who cares, at least the States got something out of it, much better use of money then a couple weeks of welfare.

>>33691913
>They also cucked out india from the project, so they will be saving a lot of moneys
Well yes, the indians will probably save some money.

>>33690245
Did you know bird urine is semi-solid? That is not poop.

>>33692517

.28 cents have been deposited to your Lockheed Press Account

>>33691680
Yep, but it only covers R&D (about $28B) + production (about $34B). Working off rough (~$60,000/hr) CPFH figures, total F-22 fleet sustainment (CPFH x 8000FH x 195) would be very roughly about $94B. That's a total of 156B. Those are all in 2011 dollars.

Per F-22 that's $800 million.

For the F-35, in 2012 dollars, it's about $59B R&D + $254B production + $621B sustainment. https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf
Deflating that to 2011 dollars that's $934B total. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Per F-35 that's $382 million.

File: 2672-dassault-rafale-dassault.jpg (180KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1920x1080px

>>33689643
Imagine the price of a new car if it were true...
Fortunately, not all project turn out to be a long list of mistakes and delays.

>>33694497
>Thread premise is literally comparing one Lockheed product with another
>"L-Lockheed shill!!1"

>>33694807
Agreed, the Rafale is the perfect aircraft for the French who don't plan on ever actually using it in anger past some token PGMs

>>33694849
And yet that's the only warplane that has proven to carry out multirole missions under real conditions. Try again.

File: 2e1.gif (174KB, 235x256px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 235x256px

>>33694905

>>33694905
>Multirole mission
>Having shot down aircraft and dropped bombs during the same mission
>Jet has zero air-to-air victories
Something here doesn't quite add up...

>>33694919
I think you mean "No air to air kills, ever" anon.

Don't think its ever even shot and missed before.

>>33691913

Name 1 example

>>33694919
>Having shot down aircraft and dropped bombs during the same mission
That's not the meaning of multirole. Multirole means suited for any kind of mission, not carrying out all of these missions during the same flight, you don't send a plane loaded with a nuke for an interception, of course.
Whatever, I don't think an air to air combat happened in the recent history, this stat is irrelevant.

>>33694905
>This is what RafaleFag actually believe

>>33695055
In that case a bajillion types of aircraft have done multirole missions (ISR + strike, etc)

>>33695074
No.
Name one.

>>33695140
F-22, F/A-18, F-15, F-16. Hell, the F/A-18C has even killed MiG-25s while carrying 4x JDAMs, before then going off and bombing some targets.

>>33695176
Why are you responding to a delusional rafalefag?

>>33695140
Even WW1 fighters were able to carry small bomb loads.

>>33695178
I usually don't enjoy people making fun of the mentally handicapped, but watching someone frustrate Rafalefag is pure entertainment

>>33689643
The F35 program is the most expensive thing in History. It cost more than 6 International space stations including startup and maintaince costs.

>>33696220
>The F35 program is the most expensive thing in History.

V-2 rocket program was much more expensive over it's lifetime then the projected lifetime of the F-35

>>33696220
>Not replacing the current planes would cost 4x as much

>>33696220
It's the largest program ever attempted and will have the biggest impact on the most countries when compared to every other aircraft ever put into service.

>>33691913
>It wouldn't be the first time the russains made something better then the US with a literal shit tier budget
It literally would be. Especially when it comes to aircraft. Even the Soviets could only ever get competitive designs compared to Western aircraft through massive design sacrifices - usually, sacrificing things like:
>ergonomics
>range
>payload
>engine life

File: F-35-Fast-Facts-Infographic-Horiz.jpg (756KB, 1616x1541px) Image search: [Google]

756KB, 1616x1541px

>>33696220

It's also the biggest aerospace program ever, replacing most combat aircraft in the US armed forces and in almost a dozen allied air forces.

the advanced f/a18 is still cooler than both

>>33694905
Aren't the F-105 and F-4 the only planes that have actually done A2A and A2G on the same mission?

Maybe the mudhen if you count dropping a bomb on a flying hind.

>>33696710
F-18 in the Gulf War managed a kill while on a strike mission. Wouldn't be surprised if a Strike Eagle also did it.

>>33696220
It isn't even the most expensive US military program, let alone any program in the world.

>>33696740
Strike Eagle did A2A exactly once.

It killed a Hind with a 2000lb laser-guided bomb.

>>33693967
Bingo. When an institution insults and threatens anybody who mentions problems, they stifle honest communication.

>>33693967
>>33696866
>Implying that has happened
>Implying you aren't just making shit up to justify your bad opinion

>>33696866
Yeah, that's definitely how THE AMERICAN FUCKING MILITARY works. They definitely don't have contingencies for every eventuality and definitely don't support honest, meaningful arguments

>>33696889
It is how every human organization works. Basic human psychology doesn't change just because muhlitary

File: Rxn Big Lebowski.jpg (971KB, 1920x1082px) Image search: [Google]

971KB, 1920x1082px

>>33696908

>>33696908
So, we have two possibilities:
1: The pilots actually, genuinely like it.
2: Nobody likes it, but nobody ever speaks out or they get silenced and their critique disappears from the net without a trace.

Guess which option is pants-on-head?

>>33690153
Can I get an answer?

>>33696950
Because it's old tech and The American Military prides itself on R&D

>>33696950
Extremely expensive to restart production for only a few hundred more, F-35 can cover the gap, expensive and has a limited utility.

>>33696832
Huh so I was right.

>>33696944
3: Some pilots like it to some degree, but don't want to risk hurting their careers by criticizing it in any way.

>>33696950
It fills a completely different role than the F-35.

It's like if when we start making B-21s, people start asking if we can just make more F-35s because they're "proven" even though they do completely different things.

>>33697030
That's not what the dipshit was claiming, and not accurate either.

http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/operational-assessment-the-f-35a-argues-full-program-procurement-and-concurrent

>>33696866
>I have no ability to refute their argument which completely eviscerates my stance, therefore I will attempt to poison the well.

>>33697030
What about all the people that hear good things in private conversations with pilots? I don't think I've ever heard about a pilot not liking the aircraft.

>>33697073
There is nothing to refute. Pilots being threatened with demotion for criticizing an airplane will stifle ALL criticism, legitimate or otherwise. That's true of any conceivable human organization.

>>33697088
Not once have I claimed that all pilots hate the plane. This is why /k/ needs IDs.

>>33697111
>I'm making ridiculous claims to poison the well, and you have to accept my faulty premise!

>>33697111
>Pilots being threatened with demotion for criticizing an airplane

Your cognitive dissonance is impressive.

>>33696950
The F-22 is significantly more expensive to procure and operate than the F-35, is behind the F-35 in certain areas (namely avionics and stealth coatings), and doesn't fill the roles the F-35 is meant to fill.

The F-22 is the "high" component of the high/low mix. In effect, it's the F-15 to the F-35's F-16. And the whole point of the high/low doctrine is that you have enough "high" fighters to completely outclass even the best planes any potential foe could field, both in terms of quality and quantity. Then you back those fighters up with a "low" fighter - a cheaper, less capable platform to fill the gaps. The problem the F-22 ran into was that, at the time it was entering service, there was nothing remotely close to a threat to it - even the F-15s were more than enough to get the job done. So it became hard to justify procurement of such an expensive plane with no viable threats at the time, and production was cut. If a potential adversary starts getting significant numbers of 5th gen fighters in service, you may see F-22 production restarted, but for now, even a modest fleet of ~150 F-22s is more than enough to outnumber and outclass any fighter in the world.

Meanwhile, the F-35 can fill the strike role that the F-22 can't fill, while maturing a bunch of relevant technologies that can be applied to plenty of other platforms, like
>engines - B-21
>avionics - B-21, F-22
>stealth coatings - B-21, F-22, B-2

>>33697170
>cognitive dissonance
You don't know what that term means.

>>33697162
It's a well established phenomena in business management. The claim that it somehow doesn't work that way in the military is absurd, human psychology is human psychology, no matter what industry or field you're working in.

>>33697111
>Not once have I claimed that all pilots hate the plane.

Except you just claimed that pilots hate the F-35 but are threatened into not voicing their opinion, without a single example.

>>33697199
>I'm going to make a claim without evidence that contradicts everything seen

>>33697199
The entire foundation of your position is "because I said so".

>>33697199
>makes insane claim without being able to back it up
>BUSINESSES DO IT ALL THE TIME
>The USAF is run like a business

Or maybe you're a retard who's grasping at straws?

>>33697199
What you are doing is a textbook example of cognitive dissonance.

>>33697199
The documentation of such a phenomena doesn't mean that it always is going to be present within an organization. You've yet to offer any evidence for your claims - you're just heavily implying that
>it's possible, therefore it's true.

>>33697199

Test pilots are not punished for giving negative feedback. That's the entire reason why they exist. The F-35 would not have made it this far is test pilots were constantly giving it negative reviews.

>>33697239
It doesn't matter how the USAF is run, it's an aspect of human psychology not planned organization. If you criticize somebody for their feedback, no matter what that feedback is, you'll stifle further feedback.

>>33697256
>>Test pilots are not punished for giving negative feedback
Perhaps not punished, but obviously threatened and insulted.

File: thinking_man_PNG11602.png (108KB, 240x336px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 240x336px

>>33697267

>obviously threatened and insulted

By who?

>>33697267
Again, the mere existence of the phenomena doesn't mean that there's any significant amount of it happening in this case like you're implying.

File: 1487247895250.jpg (218KB, 503x760px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 503x760px

>>33696832
>Killing a helo with a 2000-fucking-lb laser guided bomb
I wish I could've seen it

>>33697267
Can you give a single example of an F-35 test pilot being punished in any form for giving negative feedback about the F-35?

>>33688107
600 F-22
250 F/B-22
1000 F-15S
Would we even need carriers at this point?

>>33697336
Basically, they figured that even if they missed it'd splash some of the troops that were being landed. It started moving, the pilot prepped a Sidewinder because he thought it'd miss, but the WSO managed to keep it lased right and it just exploded mid-air.

File: 1492520458090.gif (2MB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 600x600px

>>33694914
hang on I got you

>>33696961
>>33696991
>>33697032
>>33697172
Thanks guys. Not trying to shitpost or anything, I just don't know nearly as much about aircraft as I do small arms.
So the stealth coatings on the F-35 could in theory be applied to the F-22? Was the F-22 a victim of being too advanced for it's time?

File: Screenshot_2017-04-18-08-14-40-1.png (1MB, 1080x1579px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x1579px

>>33688058
I came to post this.

>>33698003
It'd require reskinning the aircraft as part of a fleet refresh program, but yes. Which would be a good time to integrate other tech. The F-35 uses a special layered composite skin with panel RAM baked in, so it's extremely low maintenance. As in, you have to replace the section because damaging the RAM takes damaging the surface, as opposed to the extremely expensive paint on older stealth.

More that it hit in kind of a mid-point where computers were good enough to model stealth in a high-performance aircraft, but the sensor and communications tech were pretty primitive in comparison.

File: YF23.jpg (347KB, 1280x943px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 1280x943px

>>33698003
>Was the F-22 a victim of being too advanced for it's time?

No, that would be pic related.

>>33698003
F35 coatings are designed to absorb radar and to bond to carbon fiber.
They don't do well when it comes to heat or friction. But since the f35 isn't all that fast it doesn't matter.
The f22 coatings are more focused on reflecting radar and holding up to heat and friction.
Due to the fundamental differences, the f22 and f35 coatings arnt interchangeable.

>>33698003
I believe that the F-35's RAM has already been applied to our F-22s. The EOTS system on the F-35 could potentially be modified to fit inside the F-22, as the Raptor had space set aside during development that would allow for a future IRST upgrade.

I wouldn't be surprised if in 15-20 years we saw an F-22C that saw upgrades to radar, IRST, MAWS, and small bits of avionics.

>>33698098
That's not accurate at all. The F-35's coatings are hard-baked and thus part of the skin, the F-22's is basically a paint that needs to be carefully maintained. If anything the F-35's is less affected by friction effects.

>>33698289
You dont understand.
The f35 coatings are far easier to damage with heat or friction.
They do not like heat, like what you would see from going Mach 2
There a reason the f35 is limited to a fairly slow speed.

And far as being less likely to be damaged, that's some funny shit senpai.
RAM is a sentive asshoke that will chip if you look at it then ring way.
Sure it's better than the f117 days (my supervisors worked on the f117) but it's still finky shit

Source: I weld and assemble coated hardware for both the f22 and f35.

>>33698477
>They do not like heat, like what you would see from going Mach 2
>There a reason the f35 is limited to a fairly slow speed.
No it's not. It's because they chose to focus on other, far more valuable performance elements like range endurance and payload capabilities, as well as better sensors and sub-sonic maneuverability.

File: F4U-1 bird cage and landing light cropped lightened.jpg (40KB, 640x273px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x273px

>>33694807
Yeah, all good aircraft designs start out perfectly, right guys?

>>33698122
I'd be a lot happier if those F-22 upgrades were implemented in the next 5 years. Also, why wouldn't the upgraded aircraft be called the F-22B?

>>33688683
Nothing particular about the aircraft.
More to do with the time we live.
A lot more information available to the general public/arm chair autists.

>>33698477
>Source: I weld and assemble coated hardware for both the f22 and f35.

Given your lack of basic knowledge that is doubtful.

>>33699558
I doubt your average Marine really understands his rifle or the physics behind it but he can clean it well and shoot it in a vague direction

File: Screenshot_2016-08-11-00-22-06-1.png (2MB, 923x1197px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 923x1197px

>>33699558
Believe what you want, but I've welded and assembled over 120 f135 augliners, and about 60 f119s.

I deal with RAM every day
You little shits have never even seen it or even touched a single part relates to the f35 or f22..

>>33699587
>average Marine
The military doesn't make parts for the f35 or F-22.
We are all 3rd party companies.
However, a lot of guys here are retired air Force.
These guys have worked on the f117 and B2 way back in the day.
Even a old timer here worked on the sr71.

>>33699884
>Believe what you want, but I've welded and assembled over 120 f135 augliners, and about 60 f119s.
>I deal with RAM every day
>You little shits have never even seen it or even touched a single part relates to the f35 or f22..
This reads like that Navy Seals copypasta

>>33699884
I'm not doubting you, I'm just saying because someone does something doesn't make them an expert in the entire field.

File: Screenshot_2016-08-11-00-27-50-1.png (320KB, 933x603px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 933x603px

>>33699950
Definitely not copy pasta.
I work on these parts on a daily basis.

>>33700020
>Off by one

But seriously, all that info is based on my experiences and what the Pratt engineers have told me.
You know, the guys who designed the RAM coatings the the 1st place.

>>33700126
You have engine techs talking to you openly about RAM?

>>33700126
Since when does P&W have anybody doing anything with stealth outside of maybe the tailcone on the F-135?

>>33700249

The engine of a fighter jet is pretty darn important anon. It's arguably the most important part of the entire enterprise. Engines can make or break a plane's reputation (just ask the F-14 about that). They impact everything about how the rest of the plane functions, including stealth.

>>33689313
Well it could be.

>>33700270
Except it has nothing to do with the RAM coating.

>>33689313
Boogie pls go.

>>33700332

It most certainly does.

Am I retarded or just suspicious to believe the F35 has seen some limited combat in theater, but not officially recognized or announced or whatever?

>>33688121
Pilots complain about F35
> Lockheed has pre-lined-up-excuse as to why F35 fialed utterly.
Pilots that complained now no prospects of working anything ever again in their chosen field.
> Gee, this seems a legit decision.
It was a massive secret for almost a decade that the F22 strangled her pilots to death almost every flight.
> Lockheed had no answer other than, "make REALLY short flights, so short you can hold your breath - also you'll need to pay us for that advice"
F35 certainly wont be a flying lemon with a solid company like Lockheed behind it, that has zero history of building shitsticks and bribing government officials...

>>33701466
>Pilots that complained now no prospects of working anything ever again in their chosen field.
Source? Or are you speculating like in all your other posts?
>It was a massive secret for almost a decade that the F22 strangled her pilots to death almost every flight.
This was happening for a pretty short period of time. Problem was solved and it wasn't even due to the F-22, it was the equipment the aircrew were wearing which was new to any airframe because of of the high altitude performance that the F-22 has.
>F35 certainly wont be a flying lemon with a solid company like Lockheed behind it, that has zero history of building shitsticks and bribing government officials...
LM has a pretty solid history of making remarkable aircraft... P-38, U-2, SR-71, F-22, and I'll even venture to say the F-104 was a good aircraft and that the loss of jets/pilots was due to air forces trying to use a high wing loading aircraft as a fighter-bomber.instead of its purpose as a high speed interceptor (looking at you Germany.)

>>33701466

>Pilots that complained now no prospects of working anything ever again in their chosen field.

Yes, because the same government that speeds millions of dollars training pilots will discard them like toothpaste after investing so much time and money into them.

>>33701654

The F-104G was explicitly advertised as a fighter-bomber dude.

>>33688121
>In three cases, student pilots explicitly cited visibility-related impacts that could be directly applicable to the Block 1A syllabus (a largely benign visual search environment);
>student pilots
>Block 1A

>>33698477
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-low-observable-repair-facility-a-unique-asset-for-21st-century-combat-aviation/
>SLD: In entering the facility, I noticed you have a “door mat” of stealth that’s been there for some time. Can you comment on this “door mat?”
>Bill Grant: Oh, the slab of stealth? That’s our welcome mat. Yes, we actually have one of the test panels that we use for assessing the stealth of the various materials. It represents a stack-up that’s consistent with the upper surface or the outer surface of the jet. It has the exact same structure and the primer and the topcoat system that you’ll find on the operational jets. And that gets walked upon every time somebody comes in or out of our lab area out there, the repair development center.
Occasionally, we take it up to test to see if there’s any electrical or mechanical degradation to the system and with around 25,000 steps across that system we have not seen any degradation whatsoever.

>>33698477
It's hilarious when techs try to comprehend engineering

>>33699884
If you're really telling the truth, you shouldn't be showing off, because you guys at P&W really suck at your job, the first part of this wiki article is filled with problems with the F135 engine

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135

>>33702191
Don't forget the massive pile of fuckery they did with the F100.

>>33698801
F-22B was supposed to be a 2-seat trainer, not sure if they'd change the designation or not.

>>33698477
>There a reason the f35 is limited to a fairly slow speed.
Yeah... the inlets.

>>33688058
>3 variants, the cheapest of which is for the chairforce so it's the Marines and Navy fucking up the price
>Also developing the next generation of stealth
>also the next generation of real time information integration

Ya know half the complaints about the F-35 sound really similar to the complaints about the F-15, and all of those were BTFO during desert storm.

>>33700752
Retarded.

>>33702191
>MFW the Air Force passed over the fucking innovative breakthrough that was the YF120 for the archaic F119 because of perceived "lower technological risk"
>And then did the same fucking thing for the F135 over F136
>And in return all we get is shit-tier engineering and project management, and a MASSIVE propaganda/lobbying campaign to make sure F-35 AFE stays dead
F100 all over again. Fuck Pratt and Whitney, seriously.

>>33700126
tell me something i don't know

>>33698017

>during simulated deployment
>simulated

>>33695176
>name a multirole
>F-22
dude...
No wonder people here think the F-35 is some ultimate weapon.

>>33702795
>>33702949
check this pdf out: https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf

it has all the F-15 bullshit, including the Pratt and Whitney engine issue.

>>33705213
Simulated as in the missiles weren't real; the F-15Es were using their real AESA radars and TFLIRs to try and target the F-35s, but failed.

>>33705696
The only combat the F-22 has seen is air-to-ground work.

File: both_yf-23s_in_flight.jpg (102KB, 620x466px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 620x466px

>>33702949

>YF-23 is chosen
>YF-120 powered

This is the future that was taken from us

>>33705696
So in your eyes, what constitutes "multirole"?

>>33705748
i dont know about actual battlefield performance, but the F-22 is more aesthetically pleasing to the eyes than the ugly YF-23

>>33705757

I think the YF-23 looked better then the YF22, but the production F-22 looks as good or better. Regardless the YF-23 reportedly had much better acceleration and a faster supercruise speed although both planes were limited in top speed by shaping and the heat tolerance of their RAM.

I've also heard it said that the YF-23 was as maneuverable, or close to, as the 22. But oh well its something we might never know.

>>33705782
yeah, I'll admit that the YF-23 was shaping up to be a very capable plane, but now that the F-22 was chosen we'll never know

>>33701466
>It was a massive secret for almost a decade that the F22 strangled her pilots to death almost every flight.

dude, it wasn't a secret, we literally had pilots interviewed in 60 minutes on how the oxygen was broken

also it's fixed now

>Pilots that complained now no prospects of working anything ever again in their chosen field.

you do know how expensive training a single fighter pilot is like right? why would the airforce waste them like that?

>>33705750
Being able to fit all the missions usually attributed to differents kind of specialised jets (ideally in order to replace them).

>>33688058
>Chairforce fags will defend this

Wrong.


>>33688121
USMC

>>33688107

The F-22A before entered into service was the F/A-22 in which was already JDAM capable to F-15E.

File: 1bbf11d4bbfdec3c40d39413845757c5.jpg (382KB, 1100x724px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1100x724px

>>33688600
>commission insanely ambitious technological wonder
>allow politicians to have a say in petty shit like which counties the individual parts will be manufactured in
>waah waah why did it take a long time and cost a lot of money

I mean, we could have just bought soviet surplus...

File: downed_su_24.jpg (43KB, 864x486px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 864x486px

>>33706156

>I mean, we could have just bought soviet surplus...

That just gets you shot down.

>>33693967
>Civilians thinking you can just 'get assigned' to heavies like it's nothing if you bad mouth command.
>civilians thinking heavies are some kind of death sentence to pilots.

It's called the RPA community anon.

File: Slavshit.png (172KB, 772x359px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 772x359px

>>33706156

Not sure if bait or just average clueless /k/ poster.

The Mig-29 is a fucking terrible fighter for a western airforce.
It was designed under the assumption that manhours would be cheap because you could just pay your enlisted maintainers Soviet wages (liquid potato)))).

See image related.

On top of being manhour heavy, the early Mig-29s (ie: soviet surplus) were originally barely a digital aircraft with 1960s rwr, a pathetic radar, no datalink and no real range to speak of.

They were meant as a replacement for the VVS's fleet of Mig-21s and were intended to operate almost exclusively under GCI, this is the reason for the IRST.

The only thing it had going for it was a high thrust to weight ratio (mostly from having no internal fuel) and the R-73/HMS system.

File: IMG_1383.jpg (14KB, 300x199px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x199px

>>33706166
Not if you buy the RIGHT surplus

>>33706212

>No AESA
>No ARH missiles
>1980s Soviet EW and RWR
>no missile warning system
>probably some stupid <50 produced variant with no available spares since the the 90s
>RCS size of a bus
>shit tier datalink.

F-35 sees it at 400 kilometers, lazily climbs to alt to get more energy into the missiles, gets into NEZ undetected and subsonic fires C-7/D, Su-27 still completely unaware thanks to LPI and pre tetris RWR, missile goes active, flanker pilot is now aware that they are under attack, tries to fly defensive against the missile, fails because of low energy state/modern missile/missile high energy state/late reaction.

>>33706306
>then all the other SU-27s bought for much cheaper than the F-35 turn around and gangbang the F-35

1 really good plane for fucking expensive price
VS
4 pretty good planes for same price as the one

>>33706344

The Su-27 is going to gave a higher maintenance cost than the F-35 thanks to having two shit tier Russian jet engines in it and being on high airframe hours AND having no spares pool.

>4 pretty good planes for the same price as the one

4 shitty outdated planes for the same price as 4 5th gen airplanes desu, this is why so many airforces are buying the F-35, for the capability it brings it's very cheap, economy of scale for you.

>>>then all the other SU-27s bought for much cheaper than the F-35 turn around and gangbang the F-35

Those flankers that were apparently invisible?

Those flankers that can apparently detect the F-35?

>>33706344
Didn't realise that Russia still operates 10,000 Su-27s.

>>33706344
But anon, USAF has both quality and quantity.

It's probably comparable if you adjust for inflation.

>>33706344
>Su-35 estimated at $40-65m per
>Even at lowest price you can get 2 for 1 F-35A
>Nearly 3.5x as many F-35s built already
Vatnik damage control is hilarious for how much it needs to twist reality.

Daily reminder that a Sukhoi will go through six(6) engines before the F-35 goes through one. And that one will still have another overhaul to go before being replaced.

>>33706836
TBF he was talking about buying used up Su-27s, not Su-35s

Su-35s would likely not be react like a deer in the headlights vs F-35 like an old Su-27S would, although it would still be at a disadvantage.

Granted Su-35 costs still don't account for the differences in wages in Russia vs USA, EG There is no way in hell that an Su-35 would have a lower maintenance cost than an F-35 being over 3000kg heavier, twin engined (with russian engines) and with TVC, if it was with western worker wages.

>>33704938
You like slugging down massive cock.
Oh ... wait

>>33706166
kek

>>33706876
There's still going to be 1600+ more F-35s in US service alone than Flankers in all variants.

>>33705748
The YF-23 probably would have long-term issues WRT its longitudinal stiffness because of its weapon bay design

File: R-77 seeker displaying slotted waveguide antenna.jpg (454KB, 1292x2944px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1292x2944px

>>33706306
>No ARH missiles
Nigga you wot?

Why do we have air intakes under the wings?

I thought that it would be ideal to have more air pressure under the wings and less air above them?

>>33710206
Exactly, and you also want more air going into your intakes, so putting them where they scoop up heaps of air helps you go faster / have more thrust. If your intakes are on top, pulling a tight turn could make your engine starve / have a compressor stall.

>>33706207
>everyone is stupid except me
Did it ever occur to you that you're the slow one, shortbus?

>>33708496
They have never had decent numbers of them (hence why you see pictures where you have mixed radar missile loads) and only later flankers could use them, not the ones the guy I responded to was talking about , for them only R-27.

>>33710976
If you want to seem credible you should attack his arguments, dipshit.

>>33710976
This is the board that has the same YouTube comment tier discussion about the F-35 every 12 hours.

>>33711023
What argument? Did you even look at my post? The point flew right over his head and he angrily explained it back to me like it was his to begin with. That takes a special kind of stupid.

>>33711075
Is this your post? >>33706156

Were you being sarcastic about getting MiG-29s? You do understand that sarcasm doesn't translate well over text, right? Combine that with the fact that this board is flooded by retards that actually believe what you said, it's no wonder that people confuse your bullshit for the genuine opinion of a misinformed retard.

lrn2conveymessages

>>33711149
Rear-read my first post. If you seriously can't figure out what I'm trying to say, I really don't know what to tell you. I'm not Trump, and this is not twitter. I am not going to go out of my way to spell everything out in simple declarative sentences with simple adjectives like GOOD BAD TERRIBLE GREAT to avoid some retard getting confused.

>>33706207
Mig-29 has slightly more fuel than an F-16, but has twice as many engines and weighs about 30% more.

The bigger problem is that RD-33 is a cool burning engine and thus not as efficient.

>>33696405

that looks like it was literally made by cuckheed

>>33698477

> loose lips

Have F16s and MiG-29s gone head to head in any conflicts?

>>33688058
Is the F-35 going to truly replace the F-16? Will we keep the viper in storage or sell it off to the turd world?
Because I would hate for our air force to solely consist of F-22, F-35 and a few token F-15.

It's quite clear that the F-35 isn't going to be able to be produced very efficiently - and god forbid we got into a scenario where attrition was a factor and the enemy was still able to pump out Sukhoi's and shitty MiG's while we're scrambling to make 1 F-35 a week or worse sourcing back all the old F-16/F-15 machinery

>>33711595
News flash

NO modern fighter can be made in a week, or even a month. Everything these days takes a long time to manufacture. Also, modern wars will never be about attrition, it will be won in a month or two tops and maybe some mopping up afterwards where attrition is definitely not a factor.

File: qf-4-aerial-target.jpg (33KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x400px

>>33711595
I doubt that we're gonna sell any of our F-16s.
They're probably all going to become moving A2A targets, just like the F-4 did.

>>33706207
>>33711275

The problem with the MiG-29 is (the early variants) were intended as short range point defense/front line fighters when frankly an upgraded MiG-21 or 23 would have been sufficient. They wanted a true light multirole initially but politics kind of got in the way.
The later and upgraded MiG-29 variants (29M and 35) are going to be a significantly greater threat but the Sukhoi's are still king.

>>33711512
Iraq had export MiG-29's in gulf war 1 but I believe F-15's and F/A-18's got the kills

File: 11228121_10152810333836504_8024585326850145919_n.jpg (50KB, 594x397px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 594x397px

>>33711184
>I have no real argument, so I must fall back on ad hominem

>>33711298
>Literally has their logo
>Hurr mus be cuckheed

>>33711353
It's disinfo at best.

>>33711687
>Also, modern wars will never be about attrition
Get the fuck out of town, I'm not just referring to manpower attrition, but equipment attrition. For example France practically ran out of PGM's and smart bombs over Libya.
SAM's are cheaper to produce than aircraft

>>33711761
>SAM's are cheaper to produce than aircraft
But basically worthless against a competent offense.

>>33711701
Two Yugoslavian Mig-29's were shot down by F-16's. One by the Dutch and one by the Americans.

>>33688058
ummmm, hear of inflation numbnuts, f-22 was like 8 years ago

>>33711761
Yeah, and if the entire air force is shot down they won't be able to come back with factories. But the radars needed for SAMs also won't be able to come back within the span of a modern conflict, so it depends on who can beat who early on.

>>33711687

>NO modern fighter can be made in a week, or even a month.

The US government is aiming to have 1 F-35 produced per day once full-rate production is approved. As in, a new F-35 is delivered to the Air Force every 24 hours until the orders are completely satisfied.

>>33711722

that's why I said it looked like it was made by cuckheed

>>33712019
Not every day, but one every few days - their peak rate is set to be around 120 (I think around 150 including the Japanese and Italian factories) jets a year.

>>33712019
One a day based on those being in production for months before with a new one being done from the months of production every day. If they're done with making fighters or even slow down the rate of development, the increase in production from a full on war going on would not make any difference whatsoever.

>>33705748
>>33705757
>>33705782
>>33705792
the YF-23 doesn't even look like a fighter. it almost looks more like a strike plane like a F-111 or F-15E

File: John Boyd.jpg (19KB, 220x307px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 220x307px

>>33712486
>F-15(E)
>Not a fighter

>>33712048
>Official materials can't be accurate durr

>>33712707
>John Boyd
>ever seen combat
>ever flown anything better than an F-86
>Ever did anything except help write some math and get a lot of Air Force F-4 pilots killed because of the 4-ship doctrine he wrote

File: 1490060571039.png (586KB, 606x872px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 606x872px

>>33688121

>Bogdan

>>33711595
If you actually bothered to keep up you would know the USAF just approved a SLEP for its F-16's, and has also indicated it want's to retire F-15C/D's and use F-16's in its place.

>>33711761
>For example France practically ran out of PGM's and smart bombs over Libya.

Rafalefags will defend its incompatibility with NATO stockpiles.

>>33707935

That is one thing people tend to forget, but I still love the 23

The 22 is sexy as well so I'm not complaining.

File: sweating pilot.gif (583KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 400x225px

>>33712486

It looks unconventional as fuck, but those sexy as fuck chines melding into that diamond wing

>>33711716
>everyone is stupid except me
Nope. Just you.

ALL you ever need to know about a "high-profile" story like the F35, is how do the people who are "for" it, argue.

Do they "argue" like complete and utter fuckwits or do they shill like they're the president of Lockmart themselves?

In both cases you should realize you're being lied to, and the F35 is for ALL intents and purposes, a trash heap.

>>33688766
Yep, and Spreyfags are optimistic. IRL it is probably a whole lot more than 1.5 trillion.

File: 1491274265340.jpg (165KB, 921x768px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 921x768px

>>33715191

>>33702795
>and all of those were BTFO during desert storm.
More like during 81-82.
Osirak and Lebanon, the F-15/16 proved themselves capable of completely destroying Syria's shit.

oh boy oh boy, how many more years are we gonna have with this "stealth" meme? and I'm talking about "stealth" in its current state, ie mouthing off about golf-ball rcs, whilst completely going over the fact that radar operators can still see the golf-ball and the fact that it's moving at supersonic speeds

actually at this point I'd rather have some stealth-memes instead of having to read about the shitpile that is american stealth

>>33706306
>pre tetris RWR
Kek

>>33711695
QF-16s are already a thing. Better ECM and more maneuverable than the QF-4, they provide a more realistic target.

>>33715191
>You should believe the psychotic memesters rather than the sane-minded semi-normies.

oh boy oh boy, how many more years are we gonna have this "stealth" meme? and I'm talking about "stealth" in its current state, ie mouthing off about stealth needs to be 100% totally guaranteed invisible, as opposed to limiting the engagement distance for the enemy while being able to lob missiles from afar yourself

>>33715123
No, you're just a dipshit who has decided that you are right and anyone who disagrees is to be insulted.

>>33715191
>Hurr durr facts and actual performance results are shilling durr!

>>33715247
And there's the "stealth isn't real" meme.