F-35

>>34216243
Chink shill please go.

>>34216247

Not an argument

>>34216269
Neither is the OP

>>34216243
Military industrial complex

>>34216277
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/f-35-grounded-oxygen-problems/index.html

>>34216300
>CNN

That was fixed ages ago.

I don't like the F-35 but I still think you're a fag.

>>34216311

THAT WAS TODAY

JUNE 10, 2017

F-35 FIGHTERS GROUNDED OVER OXYGEN PROBLEMS

>>34216329
I'm not giving CNN hits to their site to ready anything, and neither should you.

File: rollsafe.jpg (27KB, 504x415px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 504x415px

>>34216332

>The F-35 has no problems if you refuse to read about the F-35's problems

>>34216329
Not the other guy, but these issues are typically fixed fairly quickly.
But then again, at least we HAVE a working 5th Gen.

>>34216329
Do you have any idea how often aircraft are grounded due to some problem that is promptly fixed?

>>34216364
>>34216354

>PENTAGON: F-35 WON’T HAVE A CHANCE IN REAL COMBAT
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/11/243047/

>The F-35 Amazingly Has Even More Problems Than We Thought
http://gizmodo.com/the-f-35-amazingly-has-even-more-problems-than-we-thoug-1791285476

>Pentagon: Here are all the problems with the F-35
http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-all-the-problems-with-the-f-35-that-the-pentagon-found-in-a-2014-report-2015-3

>>34216354
The problem is, we've spent a lot of money on this, through a company who spcifically specializes in aeronautics. These things shouldn't happen on a plane we're over paying for anyway.

Gashunk!

File: 14961463945090.jpg (52KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x600px

>>34216243

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/f-35s-at-luke-air-force-base-grounded-after-pilots-suffered-oxygen-deprivation

they fell for the multirole meme

>muhreens and countries with manlet carriers wanted a STOVL plane
>air forces around the world wanted a stealth f-16
>US Navy wanted to finally into stealth

>>34216388
Ok, so those are years old, please excuse me if I don't take these into consideration, especially when recent news show it dominating at war games and countries that previously lambasted it are now sheepishly coming back to the table to get a slice of the 5th Gen pie, except Canada because the gov there made it a point to not buy the F-35 and promised more Super Hornets. They'd rather keep that campaign promise and not lose votes even though they're going to be spending considerably more money on a worse plane.

https://theaviationist.com/2017/02/28/red-flag-confirmed-f-35-dominance-with-a-201-kill-ratio-u-s-air-force-says/

Also, the source in second link you posted was from an agency that has about as much to do with military aviation as does the NBA. It's the same organization that said the F-16, F-18 and F-15 were all a huge waste of time and money, advocating instead to upgrade the existing fleet of older planes.

>>34216392
But they do, this is what happens when you make a plane with new tech right out of the gate, there's going to be teething issues. Literally every time an aircraft generation is introduced there are these sort of issues.

>>34216434

>Military "confirms" the abilities of the lovechild of the Military Industrial Complex

File: I hope my eyes deceive me.jpg (44KB, 540x300px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 540x300px

>>34216434
>Ok, so those are years old, please excuse me if I don't take these into consideration,

The Giz article is from this year, what the fuck are you on about?

File: F-16.jpg (468KB, 983x655px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 983x655px

>>34216243
>Reclined seat so the pilot can't see anything
>Single engine so you're dead if anything goes wrong
>Control stick is on the SIDE because just fuck my shit up
>Negative stability so it constantly goes off course and needs to be babysat
>Supposed to be an air superiority fighter but now they want to do multirole too
>Skyrocketing costs well over budget
Putting it lightly this is the worst plane ever made and the only reason it will ever see service is that the US won't admit that it was wrong. Calling it now, these will get people killed and will be remembered as the useless hunks of shit that they are.

>>34216388
>veteranstoday

why is this even a thing?

People who give the F-35 so much shit must not know much about the history of military aviation. Smooth development processes and aircraft that are good from day 1 are the exception, not the rule. There are numerous aircraft through history that were nearly useless when they entered service (the Typhoon is a recent example, it shipped without half of its systems) and weren't fixed until B or C models, others that had ridiculously long development cycles (F-111 is an egregious example that never lived up to promises) and some that went so badly that they were pretty much flown straight from the production line to the scrapyard. The F-35 is a lot better off than many of those, and the only reason it stands out is that its whole development process has been highly publicized, unlike previous aircraft.

File: A-10As_118th_TFS_CT_ANG_in_flight_1979.jpg (57KB, 1024x685px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1024x685px

So why hasn't this total brick of shit been cancelled yet?

>expecting to pay 500 dollars per round from the gun, gun holds over a 1000 rounds, 500,000 dollars just to arm a single fucking plane's main gun that can't do shit
>gun can't even dent modern tanks
>slow as fuck
>training in dumbfuckistan myrtle beach
>expected to survive with manpads being in every unit the USSR has
>can't even protect itself in a dog fight
>somehow supposed to survive in east germany because LOL MAGIC BATH TUB XD
>not even able to carry tactical nukes
>software doesn't even work for it
>pilot has shit tier visibility
>gun doesn't even have a fucking radar for accurate fire

When are you faggots going to realize this is nothing but a shit tier lemon that has no chance in hell of ever being viable?

suck my dick fairchild republic internet defense force

>>34216458
And the article I posted is even newer than the Giz report.The Giz article is from this year, but the other ones are from years past. My main issue with the Giz Article is the source it uses, the DOTE, has routinely said the same thing about nearly every project undertaken by the US military in the past 40 years.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/116765.pdf

http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/114371.pdf

Them and GAO team up to offer terrible commentary on weapons development when they themselves have a tenuous grasp on what it is they're talking about. It's literally Sprey tier.

>>34216452
As have other nations not involved with the project, to to mention the Air Forces of those nations.
A question: If this project is such a colossal failure then how come Russia and China are scrambling to make their own versions.

File: F-22 with fuel.jpg (1MB, 1240x1574px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1240x1574px

>>34216539
>A question: If this project is such a colossal failure then how come Russia and China are scrambling to make their own versions.

Let's not pretend for a moment that they're responding to the 35, they're responding to the 22

>>34216499
>>34216535

To be honest, have these seen combat against peer forces?

>>34216499
>Negative stability so it constantly goes off course and needs to be babysat
every fighter is designed like that for more agility, that's what fly-by-wire systems and computers are for, retard.

>>34216539
>http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/116765.pdf
>http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/114371.pdf

Both of these bring up pretty valid points about the validity of these "light" fighters in modern combat against a well equipped Air Force.

Especially the F-18. Thank god that thing hasn't seen actual combat.

>>34216556
>peer forces
>Murrica
Kek

A10 got it's shit kicked in during Iraq v1 and had to be withdrawn to let the big boys play, no surprise.

File: Not B8.jpg (6KB, 225x224px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x224px

>>34216243

File: That's The Joke.gif (3MB, 448x291px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 448x291px

>>34216562
I'm sorry, too subtle? Should I have made a Bradley one instead? Garand maybe?

>>34216420
Amusingly, the Canucks are still paying quietly to be a part of the program, and there's now a three-way hissy fit between the government, their pet company Bombardier, and Boeing. The Libs are trying to play both sides of the fence and failing.

>>34216626
Whoops, meant for
>>34216434

>>34216243

The entire concept of a manned fighter jet is less important considering:

1. UAVs for high-risk missions
2. long range stealth bombers for "we need to destroy everything" missions
3. missiles for "we need to destroy XZY really fast" missions

The F-35 is good for the role it is designed for: a general purpose fighter that can be used when UAVs are non-op, bombers out of range and missiles superfluous.

>>34216329
>grounded for 1 day

Meaning they are not grounded today.

>>34216420

The USAF and USN have stealth via the X-47, and everyone benefits from VTOL (even if it's not implemented yet).

>>34216571
It's seen extensive combat. I think the majority of missions flown from the Gulf War on have been from those two airframes.

>>34216547
The J-31 and PAK-FA say otherwise. Even the J-20 is being shoehorned into a more of a 4.9++ Gen strike aircraft. Not an air superiority fighter. The F-22 is so beyond what they're capable of it's not even funny, as they know if they aim that high they'll have problems that make the F-35 look flawless.

>>34216732
forgot to add for
>>34216626
>>34216632
Yeah, there is talk as you say but it's a whole shitfest of dumb people being even dumber than before. I can't even imagine being a Canadian Air Force staff officer right meow.

>>34216757
That's how our procurement system is. Successive governments piss and fight and cancel projects and revive them years later and it's all such a shitfit. It's arguably the biggest issue with the CF right now.

>>34216243
You are the same dog shit fucking nigger that starts every single one of these threads. How you haven't been range banned and killed yourself is beyond comprehension.

All jets have issues.
The f35 is just put under a microscope compared to other fighters.

The f16 was a huge shit show
F22 also had a bunch of problems

>>34216329

our entire fighter fleet is having oxygen problems. the Navy is worried about contaminants, the F-15's lost one of their most respected pilots a few years ago over a suspected oxygen problem, the F-22 had issues... at this point only the T-38 is immune because it runs off of LOX only.

>>34217423

Superbug has OBOGS problems?

File: USAF_F-16C_is_refueled_from_a_KC-135_in_the_Gulf_War.jpg (1MB, 2800x1890px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2800x1890px

>>34216420
>they fell for the multirole meme
>multirole
>meme

Muh coding

>>34216535
For the threat envisaged at the time, it was more than enough to be survivable against the Shilka. Only until the advent of Tunguska did it find itself overmatched.

File: F-35 takeoff 3.jpg (495KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1920x1080px

Would the F-35 have been a better aircraft if the Marines hadn't forced the B version onto it?

>>34216535
Top. Fucking. Kek.

>>34216388
>Gizmodo
Get that gawker trash outta here

>>34216243
Except they offer abilities nobody has even dreamt of.
>5 F-35s sending targeting information to a B-1 with 100+ A/A missiles

File: we177-wasp.jpg (33KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x480px

>>34216535
Nuclear capable.
Really, really, far down the list of things that you'd want to deliver a nuke in but is was on the list.
Probably lower than a SNUKE.

File: f-35-production-7-728.jpg (164KB, 942x728px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 942x728px

>>34216499
>it's bait but

>muh reclined so you can't see anything
source?

>muh single engine, muh single stick
>>implying that F-16 is trash and nobody have used it.

>muh negative stability
source you idiot

>supposed to be an air superiority fighters
you are too retarded to understand the basic concept of F-35
>>>pic related

>muh skyrocketing cost
highly exaggerated
still much cheaper than F-22

>>34216562
F-16 was the first fighter with relaxed stability and fly-by-wire stabilization, so his post is a fair description of what F-16 shirposting would have been like at the time. That and infinite "remind me why we're building this when we could be building more F-14/15s instead?" threads.

>>34218448
>single stick
side stick

>>34218448
You fell for the really obvious satire.
The guy is clearly mocking the F-35 hate by equating it to the F-16 at a similar point in its development, and how all that shit is meaningless.

>>34218397
This is not new or exclusive to the F-35.

>>34218448
How has someone this stupid learned how to use the internet?

>>34218448
Sarcasm is truly a dead art form. He was pointing out that people bitched just as hard about the f-16 but now everyone is saying we should just scrap the F-35 and keep upgrading the F-16. In 50 years they'll be saying the same thing about the 35's replacement, and that we should just keep and upgrade the 35, because the RX-78NT-1's panoramic cockpit system makes some pilots dizzy until they get used to it.

>>34216243
Military Industrial Complex

Lockheed finished up the F-22 and since they would go bankrupt without another trillion dollar donation from the Federal government, they pitched the X-35 project.

There's literally NOTHING wrong with the F-22 and it's never ever been used in A2A combat

There is no reason why the F-35 should have begun production so quickly after the F-22.
What did we learn about making air superiority aircraft between now and then?
Nothing.

The F-35 is just a way to fill Lockheed pockets.
That's it. That's the beginning and end of "Why does the F-35 exist"

>>34218448
Stop posting.

>>34216352
I would suck off an F-35 but fucking this.

Not okay to ignore a problem.

>>34218097
>Would the F-35 have been a better aircraft if the Marines hadn't forced the B version onto it?
They didn't. The JSF program only ever included the STOVL requirements after Lockheed had proven that they could be included into the program without adversely affecting the other two versions.

From a program management/budget point of view, having separate CTOL/CATOBAR and STOVL aircraft would have been tremendously wasteful. You can't just not buy something new for the Marines, as the Harriers just aren't flyable anymore. And with the roles for each aircraft nearly identical, you're wasting money developing an entirely new airframe for something that could have otherwise been a special variant.

>>34218539
The F-35's the Joint *Strike* Fighter; it has a completely different role and purpose the F-22 and began development before the F-22 entered service.

>>34218502
Not exactly; you can use Link 16, etc to give target coordinates, but not in real time and Link 16 can't be used to communicate with the AMRAAMs. F-35s are able to feed target data and then take over control of the missiles, guiding them beyond the hypothetical B-1's sensor range.

>>34217448
It's not necessarily the OBOGS; the Hornet, Super Hornet, Growler and T-45 are all having issues with the OBOGS, lines / valves for oxygen, ECS system and even (for the T-45 at least) cabin integrity.

>>34217423
The issues aren't necessarily to do with the OBOGS - the F-22's issue for example was caused by the G-suit inflating at all times can causing both breathing problems as well as over-oxygenation causing partial collapse of the lungs (which is a problem with LOX systems).

>>34216678
wut

>>34216642
UAVs aren't ideal for complex missions in medium or high-intensity conflicts.
Long range bombers are very limited in numbers and reaction time.
Cruise / ballistic missiles are useless without something to spot targets and are largely useless against moving targets.

Oh look this thread again

F-350 A SHIT REEEEEE
NO CITATIONS REEEEEEE

>>34218539
You have no idea how much Lockheed makes in it's other projects. You're a silly dumb dumb

>>34220102
>Not exactly; you can use Link 16, etc to give target coordinates, but not in real time and Link 16 can't be used to communicate with the AMRAAMs. F-35s are able to feed target data and then take over control of the missiles, guiding them beyond the hypothetical B-1's sensor range.


Yes exactly. Tracks can be passed as surveillance tracks or fighter to fighter, in real time.

>>34216392

Spoken like a mindless consumer who doesn't understand how shit works. You same mouth breathers ignorantly yap about 1st year new car models. It is inevitable that problems arise. Most of you can't count to 10, let alone create the amazing machines and electronics that you take for granted every single day. But, If you are so sure it shouldn't happen, YOU design a new product and get it up to full production with zero problems. Go ahead...I'll wait.

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

170KB, 575x350px

>>34216243
You're a fucking retard.

>>34216329
>2 day minor grounding of a single wing
>HURR DURR FLEET FOREVER CRAP GRAWAR

>>34222566
Link 16 is not realtime, it's a time-share system and as mentioned, if the launch platform doesn't have a radar, doesn't have LOS, etc, it can't provide updates to the missiles being launched.

>>34216499

dont forget

>tons of dead pilots due to some bs called g-lock

>>34222719
Or just the engine stalling out or the FBW failing.

File: PAK-FA-Front2.jpg (75KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1000x667px

>>34216243
>the worst fighters (relative to the time) ever made
That honor goes to the russians that made this spectacular piece of shit.
>businessinsider.com/russias-newest-fighter-jet-is-fifth-generation-in-name-only-2016-2
>0.3-0.5 m2 RCS
Which goes to show that S-ducts is essential in a stealthy design.
Then we have the whole engine business, the AL-41F1 is woefully inadequate for the task and russia lacks both funds and brains to get the replacement in working order.
We also have the issue of gaps in the weapon bay doors which is extremely detrimental to a stealthy design and makes the whole plane reek of shoddy design and workmanship.
One could go on for ages pointing out flaws in the PAK-FAilure.

Truly a fitting plane for russia.

>>34216499
I don't think you know what negative stability is.

>>34223536
>Russia has failed to get a working AESA until now
>claim the T-50 will have a working GaN AESA
>vatniks will defend this

Can't wait to see what they'll actually end up with.

File: IMG_0140.jpg (1MB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1280px

>>34223536
>gaps in the weapon bay doors
IKEA furniture has better fitted doors than the PAK-FA.

It's a problem across the board in US businesses these days. After NAFTA, around the time of Jack Welch, everybody in the management suites started replacing competency with a form of political correctness because they were all afraid of looking stupid.

It worked out great because the fraud piled up as high as the hon sets. CEOs getting paid a gorilla on $$$$ for doing nothing but misrepresenting facts and throwing people under the bus by offshoring.

The POS F-35 is a natural outcome of the cancer infecting US business leaders. Plus idiots like John McCain who would fund research into turning feces into gold if Raytheon told him to.

>>34223691
why are the engines bare metal like that? heat?

File: 1478223187027.jpg (37KB, 513x700px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 513x700px

>>34223691
how much trouble would an american airforce crew be in if they allowed a plane to get rusted to shit like that?

>>34216269
OP made the assertion, OP has to back it up.

lrn2logic&persuasion, you fucking yellow slope shill

File: file.png (1MB, 960x907px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x907px

>>34216269
It's not even worth giving you facts, you're just gonna ignore it or meme answer pretending to be retarted

>>34216332
anyone that cites either chicken noodle news [cnn] or pravda on the potomac [washington post] is immediately disregarded as a liberal retard.

>>34223691
I really hoped the Russians would get things on track. I expected them to cover the engines, fix the ducts and get rid of that hideous IRST placement.
It's just a matter of good design. And I hoped they could do it. But they can't and the Russians will lose for a long, long time their lead in aircraft manufacturing that they had to the Chinese.

>>34217754
>when people think that the difference in calibre between 23 and 30mm on 4000rpm radar guided AAA means that the A-10 goes from being not dead to dead.

Only the cockpit on the A-10 is armoured, the A-10 needs wings, fuel, control surfaces and structural integrity to fly and none of these are protected particularly more than on other aircraft.
The reason for the bathtub was after CAS/COIN aircraft in vietnam lost a suprising number of pilots to unguided low rate of fire cannons/heavy MGs; these are much less acurate than a Shilka.

>>34223585
I don't think you got the purpose of that post.

>>34223891
Supposedly it's because they are not the production engines and that all the problems incuding shape, lack of S-ducts, and non stealth engine nozzles will be fixed in the final engines.
Surprising no one, these new izdeliye 30 engines has been at the "ready any day now™" stafe for years as is usual for russian military development these days.

>>34224017
They have already covered the engines in the latest 1 or 2 prototypes. Ducts aren't going to change though, neither will the IRST.

>>34224255
What about their GaN AESA ?

>>34225111
I've never seen any reputable sources or official statements saying the N036 is going to be GaN, only that it'd be GaAs-based. Russia has built prototype GaN radars, but so has the US, China and a couple of European nations (doesn't mean they're going into operational jets just yet).

>>34225799
How can vatniks be this retarded ? I've heard them claim the T-50 GaN radar will be superior to anything available to the west. I can almost understand if it was an official claim, but it's not even that. Fucking vatniks.

Also nice dubs.

>>34225799
Got any sources for them being GaAs though ?

File: f-35, lockheed martin, lockheeb jews.png (39KB, 300x100px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 300x100px

>>34216243

Who could it be?

>>34225868
There's a lot of heresay forum stuff, but here's one that's from a magazine: https://issuu.com/vishmeh/docs/armada_june-july_2015_low/30 (left page, middle column, first paragraph).

Somebody is forgetting about red flag.

>>34226001

>An American-run exercise "confirms" the quality of the F-35

You know those commanders were told they'd have their careers hanged if they didn't make the F-35 seem like the new hot shit.

Wouldn't be surprised if a couple years from now there are leaked documents of all the rule changes and exceptions it was given.

>>34225985
thanks m8

>>34216556
The only air to air loss the F-16 has suffered was against another F-16, so in a way its seen peer to peer combat.

>>34225985
http://iz.ru/news/606892

Got this one too. Google translate should do, wife struggles to translate because she doesn't understand what it's about and terminology is different in Russia, kek.

>>34226044
>You know those commanders were told they'd have their careers hanged if they didn't make the F-35 seem like the new hot shit.

And i'm sure you have a credible source for that statement that you simply forgot to put in your post.

>>34226044
>All reports state RF 17-1 was the most difficult scenario ever run just so the F-35 pilots would actually get something out of it
>Hurr Durr dey faked da scenureeoo tuh muk eet ezy!

it's so bad the rest of the world superpowers are going to copy it

>>34226474
And I really do suspect that you know absolutely nothing about sarcasm, juxtaposition, or shitposting.

>>34216243
Present your argument on why it's shit or gtfo

>>34226470
You mean they're going to copy the F-22? Not a lot of single engine fifth gens in the works...

>>34216499
negative stability improves maneuverability. reclined seats increases load capability. also the f-35 has a see through fuselage. side control stick increases control-ability in maneuvering flight. you pleb.

>Russian and Chinese reports on their 5th gen planes
>Everyone takes at face value despite neither being ready for deployment this decade

>US reports on their 5th gen planes
>Every says its fake and already calling it a lemon despite them actually being deployed

Why this sort of mentality? These are all shills who do it for the rubles and yuans right, or they do it for free because vatnik or CHINA STRONK?

>>34226587
Bud, learn the following few things about how the internet interprets and reacts to military news;

1) Anything done by the US should be thoroughly scrutinized and held in extremely low regard whereas anything done by China or Russia should be celebrated, and even more inexplicably, treated as some sort of mighty counterpooint to America even if the project has fuck all to do with the US

2) The goal is to spread as much FUD as possible about the state of the American military and hype up the steaming shitheaps that are the Russian, Chinese, and Indian conventional forces.

TL:DR; The only people who do these things are third worlders and bitter Euros with a crippling inferiorty complex towards the US, something which they try to mask by being snide and scornful towards Americans in an attempt to be taken seriously by us.

>>34216364
This guy knows. Every single aircraft that goes up into the air has at least a 25% chance of breaking something important. It's just the strain of what they do.

>>34227117
This.

I had a teacher who used to work on the old Tigers. His job was to find mostly wear problems on them. The guy said that the ejection seat explosives didn't have any direction when mounted on, so some ended up mounted upside-down. He also found some fatigue cracks all over the place. 30-40 years after it entered service they were designing new parts for it to make the air frame last longer.

And you could do this for any other aircraft too. How many times the A-380 were grounded for example, with issues as crazy as the fucking fuselage falling apart due to fatigue.

If you ever talk to someone who worked in the industry and had a general view of the projects, you always hear about such stuff. If you put the F-35 issues in perspective with other aeronautics projects, they aren't that bad at all. And if you compare it to the original F-16 it's a fucking miracle.

>>34226587

It was the same shit with the V-22, and will be the same shit with the B-21. It can't be helped.

>>34226587
(you) farming.

It's what happens when you have a generation of children that are raised by single mothers and ostracized by their social groups. They form maladaptive strategies to get attention.

>>34226533

Because either the countries are buying the F-35, or they haven't a hope in hell of replacing the "low" end of their fighter squadrons with anything other than an updated 4th gen any time soon.

>>34216535
Yet still more combat kills than the F-35.

File: 1344982008608.jpg (120KB, 600x902px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 600x902px

>>34228113
>A plane just entering service has less combat time than one in service 40 years

>>34229868
>one in service 40 years
So you admit that the A-10 is superb.

>>34231418
No, you're just a fucking retard.

According to all known laws of aviation (According to Vatniks, 50 centers, and fags), there is no way the F-35 should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The F-35, of course, flies anyway, because F-35s don't care about what retards think is possible.

>>34216556
A couple Turks got in a tussle with a Greek Mirage 2000 and got BTFO.