Know the Difference

I'm smarter than you

>>34391852
Think about how embarrassing it would be if the U.S. had technological parity with the Chinese and Russians in tactical aircraft.

>>34391852
Good for us then that we can afford both the JSF program as well as many upgraded hornets as we like.

Are you from Europe?

>>34391958
Spoken like a welfare queen.

>>34391852
>Think of how many Superhornets we could have maintained and upgraded to Hyperhornets for the cost of the entire JSF moneysink "program."
.5 for every 1 superior F-35.

>>34391852
good thing the F35 also replaces the F16 and the AV-8B. good thing that they cost less than Super Hornets. good thing that we're buying new airframes instead of letting existing F/A-18s turn into maintenance nightmares.

>>34391893

Think about how laughable it will be after the Chinese easily copy us after we have spent all that R&D money

>>34391852
What's different and specs on hyper hornets?

File: 1490358909062.jpg (105KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1280x720px

>>34393023

>>34393055
They don't exist. They can't match stealth as well as a ground up design. They're still fucking Hornets.

>upgrading to hyperhornets instead of saving for ultrahornets
>not dumping into the carbon materials tree for that sweet 15% discount on omegahornets later on

did these plebs even read the fucking wiki

>>34393097
>>34393023
only if we sell them to those damn Jews and they give it to the Chinese.

oh wait.

>>34392958
>good thing that they cost less than Super Hornets
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/f-35-unreliability-risks-strain-on-pentagon-budget-tester-says-j4gpnpbg

There's not only the price of the plane to take in account.
Also UK eventually can't afford the required number of F35 on its carrier, for some reason...
All in all this plane is a budget killer and is everything but cheap.

>>34394973

Yes, an aircraft that is not yet mature costs more to run and has more supply chain issues than aircraft that have been in service for decades, this is not surprising. Unless you have reason to believe that the economies of scale and efficiencies developed experience won't lower costs in future, this isn't remarkable.

>Also UK eventually can't afford the required number of F35 on its carrier, for some reason...

Source? I was not aware of any change in plans for a full size 138 F-35 aircraft buy between the RAF & RN. They only plan to plan to have one carrier at sea, and run around ~40 aircraft (including rotary) off that carrier at any one time.

File: Trump-superhornet-tweet.png (20KB, 295x278px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 295x278px

>>34393345

>>34393023
Making shitty rip offs doesn't cut it, Ping-Pong

Imma walk into this, but...
Why not F-15E upgrades?
Because they are THAT old and still fly-by-wire?

>>34396393
I'm glad you decided to immortalize that grand moment of stupidity.

>>34396426
because the mudhen isn't 5th gen, we'd be giving time to adversary states to catch up with our technological advancements.

>Buy a bunch of F-35s that are superior to everything the Chinese and Russians have
Or
>update an old design, which will cost prett much the same amount of money anyway, and only maintain parity with Russia and China.

Not to mention the fact that the JSF is supplying all of our allies with 5th capabilities, which is very helpful.

>>34391852
Super Hornet is a bloated airframe, should have upgraded the Tomcat instead

>>34396534
You and OP deserve each other's idiocy.

>>34396534
Tomcat got canned because it's expensive to keep in the air, if you want expensive may as well go new expensive.

>>34396554
The Super Tomcat 21 was supposed to be a lot less expensive to operate since they were going to replace a lot of the legacy equipment

>>34396631
That doesn't fix the expensive and bitch to maintain swing wing system.

>>34397436
Replacing titanium parts with carbon fiber would help

File: bilde.jpg (5KB, 640x345px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 640x345px

>>34393023

>>34397489
Not really.

>>34396426
This was talked about a few years back. F-15SE Silent Eagle. Price was comparable to F-35, and that was when F-35 at its most expensive.

Ultimately too expensive, while ignoring the advantages the F-35 does have. I would have loved to see existing F-15s upgraded, but most of what was offered had already been done.

>>34396534
Upgrading Tomcats would have been a waste of money. Had they been upgraded instead of retired, they would have been retired by now. They simply would not be able to maintain airworthiness, let alone mission readiness. Naval aviation is brutal on planes, and the swing wings make things even worse on maintenance.

>>34397489
How so? Carbon fiber is a kind of strange material. Its strong, but brittle. Rather than bend and wear, it just shatters.

I'm pretty sure Tomcat's have made it back to the boat with one wing forward and the other back. Since carbon fiber is more prone to a catastrophic failure, I don't think it would be desirable in a fighter that was already limited to 6G's to preserve airframe life, despite being capable of twice that.

>>34396505
>allies
Iran was our "ally" once. Now we've scrapped all our airworthy F-14s (even the ones in mothballs) just to keep them from getting spare parts. I'd love to see the Saudis have a revolution immediately after we sell them all three variants of the 35.

>>34399864
>I'm pretty sure Tomcat's have made it back to the boat with one wing forward and the other back.
it was actually a test goal, and it did so sucessfully

>>34397498
>Two engines
>Same size intakes
???

>>34401694
They're much shittier engines. Which is why there's two in it.