So what's the endgame for the F-35? Is it supposed to replace

>>34459198
they're replacing everything with f35s even the tanks and aircraft carriers

File: IMG_4145.jpg (143KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1920x1080px

>>34459209
>U.S. F35s take down Beijing

File: Broadsword VTOL proof.jpg (518KB, 1280x1704px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1280x1704px

>>34459231
Oh please, the AV-14 is more like a fucking MH-6 than a fucking fighter aircraft.
This is the UNSC's primary fighter aircraft.
AND ITS A (SSTO) VTOL TOO

>>34459198
The F35 has been a turd ever since it was conceived... Flying ability wise. What it's REAL role will be, is a mobile... Well, you will figure it out when there are 1,000 drones over head.

>>34459686
>The F35 has been a turd ever since it was conceived... Flying ability wise
Paris says otherwise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NdwZAeXhI

>>34459712
>(circa 2002)

>>34459198
Man, someone in this thread is trying really hard with all these charts that use inaccurate/outdated information.

File: 1497980770992.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34459659
>>34459693
>>34459700
>>34459706
>>34459712
>Current year
>Not using current information

>>34459231
>technologically advanced multi-cultural religious fanatics
>China

wew

>>34459693
>two engine
>>F-35
>>designed to replace F-16
>>>"muh not two engine, it's a problem"

>two aircrew
implying that it's a competitive advantage

>Gun
20mm versus 25mm

>can't Buddy Refuel
>>what's MV-22 or Hornet itself?
not a serious problem

>Cost
cost of armed force having joint fighters is far less expensive than the cost of each military branches having its fighters respectively

>low observable
>>stealth, passive sensor(EOTS)
>>"so stealthy, it produced training challenges, pilot says"
>>https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/07/31/f-35-so-stealthy-produced-training-challenges-pilot-says/87760454/

>networking, fused sensor, EW, pod, battle damage, manoeuvre
>>muh i trust internet clickbaits more than Uncle Sam and Lockheed Martin

>impossible to carry HARM, SLAM-ER, HARPOON

i'm raelly sick of this

>>34459693
>>impossible to carry HARM, SLAM-ER, HARPOON
source or GTFO

>>34459795
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

>>34459795
>>34459819
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA_Conf_-_JSF_Program_Brief_-_26_Sept_06.pdf
page 38 motherfucker

>>34459784
>>Cost
Yes, the greatest advantage of the F-35 is the production cost. The more that's produced, the better. Especially when there's a number of buyers lined up and systems designed to utilize their full potential. ie the USN's new carriers.

If the US were to go to war with another major in the next 5-10 years, they would be able to pump these strike fighters out like they did with B-25s in WW2

File: Cap 2017-07-06 17-04-48-355.png (28KB, 465x227px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 465x227px

>>34459819
i can't find the word "impossible to carry desu"

by the way
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM
>pic related

>>34459832
>If the US were to go to war with another major in the next 5-10 years, they would be able to pump these strike fighters out like they did with B-25s in WW2
So given how our F/A-18s are literally falling apart on the deck, the fuck aren't we doing this already?

>>34459198
Does the F-35 even perform better than the F-16 in non-stealth missions?

File: 1492233261293.jpg (3MB, 4729x3148px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4729x3148px

>>34459879
Politics. Nay-sayers who think the F-35 is the worst thing since the F-104

Russia can't mass produce their 5th gens. They don't have the means or budget to do so, especially since the price of oil has dropped so much.

China on the other hand may be able to, but we have yet to see them mass produce their 5th gens, along with constructing an appropriate platform for the aircraft. ie the 2nd carrier that's currently being built (with a catapult system)

>>34459198
>>34459700
>>34459693
>>34459659
>I am not tired of this relentless shitposting
This kind of threads make me vomit.
please kys

>>34459930

Yes, it has superior; payload, range, and sensors without the use of external fuel tanks, weapons pylons, or targeting pods, add in external stores and it can carry far far more than an F-16 while using munitions more accurately from a greater range. That is even before you get into the other unique improvements to electronic systems.

>>34459930
Higher payload and range, better drag index due to not needing bags, better sensors

File: for hälvede.jpg (14KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 160x160px

>>34459777
Reality tv guy who can't spell and read long texts hops on the anti-F35 train and goes on twitter. Yeah that really proves something. The man never says anything about complicated subjects unless he has taken time to learn all the details and nuances about them.
The F-35 is truely BTFO, better cancel the whole project right now

File: The_cyber.jpg (5KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 300x168px

>>34460182
"You know the catapult is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our digital catapult system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to keep up with modern [technology]. I said you don’t use steam anymore for catapult? No sir. I said, "Ah, how is it working?" "Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air."
It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we’re staying with digital." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.

>>34460364
Brilliant

File: 1498597885830.jpg (21KB, 250x252px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 250x252px

>>34460182

>>34459819
>>34459829
Thats because it's being integrated to carry AARGM-ER and the JSM, which do a better job.

>>34459198
It takes over for the f16 and just like the f16 it's designed to be used by allied countries to upgrade to the latest generation

File: international_agreement.jpg (10KB, 310x163px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 310x163px

>>34460182
He's still the president of America... if he gives the order for the F-35 to be canceled, it's going to be canceled.

>>34459198
that the f-35 is shit is russian desinformation because they cant match it.

>>34460398
thats not really how things work, but ok

>>34460407
Which is why one got shot down in Syria rite?

>>34460398
President or not, he has got his hands tied here (allthough he might not realize it himself). A cancellation of the F-35 at this stage is way too late - and has been for years now - and will cause more public outcry than there has been over the jet's cost untill now. It would not make sence economically or military at this point either with a more or less develloped plane that is now getting down to a reasonable price tag.

Yes he *could* cancel it but the consequenses will make him even more unpopular than he allready is among everyone but his most loyal voters.

>>34460411
Source

File: 1499198956862.jpg (4MB, 3300x2550px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3300x2550px

>>34460411
>shot down f-35

hue

>>34460426
kek , dont hold your breath

>>34460423
Cancel the F-35 program and implement the technology developed from it into improved Super Hornet models. Done.

>>34460426
Radio Yerevan

>>34460411
how much vatnik can one shitposter get

>>34460457
First of all: Why?
Even if it was realistic to somehow move the capabilities of an F-35 into a Hornet by magically "implementing the technology" what would you actually gain from this? the psysical frame of the F-35 and the engines are all sorted out by now and the performance is not really worse than the F-18. Sure you could throw a new radar, data-link and whatever inside a Hornet (which they are allready doing to some extend) but the big selling point here - which is stealth - cannot be moved. It has to be built in the aircraft from the very beginning.

The other big selling point, and possibly the most important thing here, is the advanced electronic capabilities of the F-35, among these the data-fusion and sharing. These sophisticated things are the reason behind A LOT af the problems and delays there have been with the jet. Trying so somehow "implement" these inside an F-18 would not make them less complicated or remove any problems with them, and thus the Hornet will suffer from the excact same difficulties that the JSF is. Even more so: Many of the fixes to the huge amount of bugs and problems that there have been would have to start all over again.
Just think about even the simple things that needed fixing like making the computer adjust to the recoil of firing the gun so that the plane would stay on target. Everything would have to be analyzed again and changed.

Fucking christ these F-35 threads always turn out the same.

>jack of all trades master of none (+500 upvotes)
>muh A-10
>super outdated Air Power Australia "analysis"
>vatniks shilling their slavshit gen 4++++... fighters
>frogs shilling the Rafale/Euro-canard trash
>Trump tweets
>muh maneuverability
>muh weapons capacity (but it carries more than the F-15E)


Did I miss anything?

>>34460537
Dragon comes in, dickslaps each argument (besides politics) out of the water and the tread suddenly goes quiet?

>>34459198
You guys realize that with the money we spent on the F-35 we could have refurbished 12 Iowa class battleships, built 120000 M48 tanks, and 12000 F-5s?

>>34460624
>what is inflation?
>what is a closed production line?
>what is sustainment costs?
>what is lazy shitposting?

>>34460660
>>what is inflation?
Your mom.
>>what is a closed production line?
Your aunts sister
>>what is sustainment costs?
Your dads wife.
>>what is lazy shitposting?
Your Grandpas daughter.

>>34460624
This is the funniest shit I've read all morning. 10/10 anon.

File: 5199221_p0_master1200.jpg (123KB, 300x600px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 300x600px

>>34459954
>the worst thing since the F-104
F-104-chan was fine for everyone who didn't think SUPERIOR KRAUT ACE PILOTING could turn a high-altitude interceptor into a high-speed crop-duster.

>>34460830
>SUPERIOR KRAUT ACE PILOTING
The Germans didn't even have the highest crash rate, the Italians lost more than a third to losses while the Belgians and Canadians lost almost half of all delivered.

>>34460867
>meanwhile in Spain

>>34459198

The endgame is that it becomes America's standard stealth fighter jet for the next 30-50 years. This is especially true after the first engine swap happens, which will increase performance (and possibly allow for VTOL operations, a direction that would allow almost anything to be an aircraft carrier).

The larger question is what comes next. The F-35 itself is notable for being made out of composite materials, perhaps whatever replaces it will be made out of carbon nanotube materials. A lighter aircraft would also allow for more lift fans, which could make VTOL operations even more feasible. Same for things like having an onboard fission (or eve fusion) reactor, which would allow for a laser (which the AF proved the feasibility of with the YAL-1, and the Navy with the XN-1).

>f35 gets flown 200 hours per year

what the fuck

>>34460448
Anyone have stats for SUs?

>>34459198

The intent was for it to be the low part of the high-low mix with the F-22 being the dedicated air superiority fighter (now cancelled) and the F-35 being the cheap multirole fighter.

It failed horribly of course. It's obscenely expensive, defeating the purpose because a 100 million+ aircraft is not realistically going to be put in situations where it is exposed to enemy fire. As a result, they will continue to use their legacy aircraft for another generation.

File: 509852c2afa96f2d52000009[1].jpg (35KB, 400x299px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 400x299px

>>34459832

>Yes, the greatest advantage of the F-35 is the production cost. The more that's produced, the better.

Literally a marketing promise to get them to buy more of them. If there were any issue other than a military appropriations project, you would spot the scam language instantly.

>If the US were to go to war with another major in the next 5-10 years, they would be able to pump these strike fighters out like they did with B-25s in WW2

Dude, less than 10 kitted out would eclipse a billion fucking dollars, and that's not even factoring in the training costs for the pilots.

>>34461035
>If there were any issue other than a military appropriations project, you would spot the scam language instantly.
economy of scale isn't only a thing with military projects, anon. many industries operate with it.

>>34459659
>>34459693
>>34459700
>>34459706
>>34459712
>>34459761
>>34459772
>>34459777
Mmmmmmm. Smells like desperation from the F-35 haters. It is delicious.

File: vatnik of the future.png (396KB, 960x576px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 960x576px

>>34460484
>how much vatnik can one shitposter get
If you really want to find out someone should summon armatard into this thread.

>>34461014
>It's obscenely expensive
Compared to what? It isn't even in full rate production yet and it's already cheaper than the Rafale, Typhoon and even most recent F-16E/F Block 60/61 buy by UAE.

Please explain what it is so expensive in relation to. Don't forget to compare actual capabilities when looking at price point.

>>34461264

Yes, and in this case it was an argument made by the manufacturer to try and dismiss the obscenely high cost of a project where the entire point of the project was to create a cheap product. Then they proceeded to sell it politically the way they do every appropriations project, giving everyone a piece of the pie, which drives the cost up astronomically. It's one thing to say "economy of scale", it's another thing to actually do it.

TLDR, it was a marketing gimmick to convince people that a 120 million dollar aircraft could suitably replace a 20 million dollar aircraft.

>>34461035
>Dude, less than 10 kitted out would eclipse a billion fucking dollars, and that's not even factoring in the training costs for the pilots.
Now go price the same for any other operational 5th gen fighter. Oops, that's right. The F-35 is literally the only production line for operational 5th gens up and running anywhere in the world. Ok, how about any other operational 4+ gen fighter like Typhoon or Rafale. Then tell the class what you learned.

>>34461336
>it was a marketing gimmick to convince people that a 120 million dollar aircraft could suitably replace a 20 million dollar aircraft.
dude, it can detect the firing of a tank gun 20 km away, and then classify the tank and potentially mark it as a target for another F-35. you can't compare 5th gen planes to 4th gen planes.

>>34461336
>TLDR, it was a marketing gimmick to convince people that a 120 million dollar aircraft could suitably replace a 20 million dollar aircraft.
Um, except an F-16 even without anywhere close to the bells and whistles on the F-35 (the recent UAE F-16E/F) was just as if not more expensive than current F-35A prices.

You don't get to use old prices from LRIP 7 for the F-35 and compare them to 1998 prices for the F-16 Block 40/42. Especially considering the fact that the two aircraft versions are so far apart capability wise they're not even on the same planet. Someday, son, if you make it through middle school, you might learn about such a thing as product value per purchase price dollar.

>>34461359

>you can't compare 5th gen planes to 4th gen planes

Every time I argue this the same thing happens.

"It's expensive"

"No it's not"

"Yes it is"

"Well uhm, uh, it's better, it can do *bunch of shit involving external radars, satellites, and other support technology independent of the plane)*"

Protip, if you can't make 10 planes and train 10 pilots to use them for less than the budget of a small country, it's probably not a low-mix.

File: Meeting_2ea313_285717[1].jpg (23KB, 296x319px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 296x319px

>>34461374

>you might learn about such a thing as product value per purchase price dollar.

I love the shuck and jive military appropriations people do for this issue. Listen, son, look at how much we spent on the F-22 vs how much use we got out of it. Then do the same for the F-16. Then try to lecture me with a straight face about product value per purchase price dollar.

>>34461395
>bunch of shit involving external radars, satellites, and other support technology independent of the plane
the tank thing doesn't require external technology. it can be done by the DAS alone.

>Protip, if you can't make 10 planes and train 10 pilots to use them for less than the budget of a small country, it's probably not a low-mix.
what, so we're supposed to have 10 million F-16s? price isn't everything.

>>34461432
>Listen, son, look at how much we spent on the F-22 vs how much use we got out of it.
a lot. when was the last time you saw another country's air force seriously square up against the F-22? even the threat of deploying them is enough to make people calm down.

>>34461336
What $20 million aircraft is it replacing?

>>34461449

>when was the last time you saw another country's air force seriously square up against the F-22?

Nigger, we haven't squared up against another serious air force in a meaningful way in the entire lifetime of the F-22. And you're sitting here lecturing about the purchase price per dollar of another bleeding edge aircraft as if the F-22's individual superiority was the reason for it. That's a laughable assumption.

>what, so we're supposed to have 10 million F-16s? price isn't everything.

You're a little slow so I'll spell it out for you. It's supposed to be a low-mix fighter. You're supposed to be able to mass produce them in a war, and be able to put pilots who haven't been training for 30 years straight and get a decent value out of them. So, and I will go slow again. If it costs 120,000,000 fucking dollars, that's not exactly going to work out, now is it?

>>34461432
>Then do the same for the F-16
Someone is completely unaware of the fact that the F-16 was rushed into service, structurally flawed with an engine prone to compressor failures and required a significant and expensive refit for over 700 airframes to bring up both availability and mishaps per 10k flight hours numbers.

It's been 11 years since the F-35's first flight. It has killed zero pilots and had only one class A mishap, and that was on the ground (engine fire). In the same amount of time, the F-16 had 73 class A mishaps (which were even more serious back then because inflation - the definition of a class A mishap hasn't been changed since Vietnam, so still 1 million dollars) and 24 total pilot fatalities (1975-1986).

http://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Aviation/Aircraft%20Statistics/F-16.pdf

Maybe you should, I don't know, read a fucking book before commenting upon subjects about which you are utterly ignorant.

>>34461484
he thinks a modern F-16 would sell for 20 million dollars. he is using 90's stats on the price of an F-16C.

File: When sudoku commits you.jpg (53KB, 960x876px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 960x876px

>>34461489
>Nigger, we haven't squared up against another serious air force in a meaningful way in the entire lifetime of the F-22

Look, kids, it's another one of those fucking morons who believes that because we haven't needed to use it that means it must have been completely fucking useless.

Everyone point and laugh at the silly retard.

>>34461489
>we haven't squared up against another serious air force in a meaningful way in the entire lifetime of the F-22.
exactly, since all near-peer air forces are well aware that the F-15 will destroy them, and the F-22 will simply cuck them. the best weapon is one that you never have to use.

> And you're sitting here lecturing about the purchase price per dollar of another bleeding edge aircraft
i'm not that guy.

>It's supposed to be a low-mix fighter.
says who? we tried that with the F-16, and look what that is now.

>You're supposed to be able to mass produce them in a war
yeah, and we can. we just aren't doing it right now, since, well, we're not at war.

>and be able to put pilots who haven't been training for 30 years straight and get a decent value out of them.
if anything the F-35 is better than previous planes then. you don't need a physical training model so you can do all training in a simulator, basically everything is automated so you don't need to develop weird idiosyncratic tricks to get the plane to work at a functional level (you're still going to be feeling the vibration of the engine in your prostate to monitor it, but you're not going to be doing fucking rolls to see out of the cockpit properly or anything stupid like that), and the user interface is just better in general.

>If it costs 120,000,000 fucking dollars, that's not exactly going to work out, now is it?
i can say the exact same thing about an abrams.

>>34461489
>If it costs 120,000,000 fucking dollars, that's not exactly going to work out, now is it?
If it kills 5-10 enemy aircraft for every time it is shot down, then yes. Yes it will work. What were the kill ratios for Desert Storm again? Or for any conflict since Vietnam? Oh, right...

The F-16 has a 76-1 A2A kill ratio.
The F-15 is 104-0.
Both of those birds could be ten times more expensive and still be cost effective.

The F-22 and F-35 are both light years better than the F-15 and F-16 respectively, in spite of being close to or only slightly more expensive than the Silent Eagle or F-16E/F Block 60/61, So, yes, it does work out quite well.

It's just your conception of the warfighting economy which is completely donkeyfucked.

>>34461529

>Someone is completely unaware of the fact that the F-16 was rushed into service

Someone else is unaware that we actually used it.

>It's been 11 years since the F-35's first flight. It has killed zero pilots and had only one class A mishap

That's an amusingly lawyered way to make the plane sound like it has been in service without issue for a long time. Sorry sunshine, almost all that is prototype flights. The reason it has been "flying" so long is because it's taking an eternity to get the fucking thing working. The lawyered language does amuse me though, do you work for the manufacturer, or are you quoting their marketing? I don't normally break out the shill response, but when I see language that carefully constructed and meticulously lawyered, I just can't help myself.

And did you notice how you once again ducked all the price and role discussion in favor of capability? I sure noticed. This sad attempt to save face is just not going your way.

>>34461564

>exactly, since all near-peer air forces are well aware that the F-15 will destroy them, and the F-22 will simply cuck them. the best weapon is one that you never have to use.

ROFL, Yes I'm sure that's why we haven't had a major engagement with another air force. That's, just great logic, pal. Why stop there though? Let's take it to the next level. I'm sure if we didn't have the F-22, we'd be wolverines fighting the Nicaraguans and Cubans in Michigan.

>>34461616
>Someone else is unaware that we actually used it.
There are over 231 extant and flying F-35s at the moment, many of them flying the same sorts of patrols and training an F-16 was from 1975-1986. Class A mishaps are all completely separate from combat loss statistics, by the way. There were 723 F-16s extant in 1986, so by your logic the F-35 should have 32% as many class A mishaps and pilot fatalities as the F-16 over the same period when considering total airframe fraction.

Once again, the F-35 has ZERO pilot fatalities and ONE class A mishap, not the 7.7 pilot fatalities and 23.36 class A mishaps it SHOULD have when compared to the F-16.

Can you even into basic production history and math?

>>34461638
>Yes I'm sure that's why we haven't had a major engagement with another air force
Allow me to direct you to:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rs-storm.htm

Read. A. Fucking. Book.

>>34461599

>If it kills 5-10 enemy aircraft for every time it is shot down, then yes. Yes it will work.

I love how you cut the sentence out of context to reply to it. Your 5-10 enemy kills for each aircraft is your high-mix, not your low mix. The fact that the F-16 has that ratio is because it was designed to be a low mix against Russians. Those kills are against durka durkas.

>>34461616
>Sorry sunshine, almost all that is prototype flights
Prove it. If you're claiming that the majority of current F-35 flight hours are "prototype flights" with 231+ airframes in the air and several squadrons already trained up and switched over, then you know even less about this topic than you appear to.

>>34461638
>Yes I'm sure that's why we haven't had a major engagement with another air force.
it's a large part of it. other countries are wary of america to begin with, they haven't forgotten the F-117 debacle.

>>34461616
>And did you notice how you once again ducked all the price and role discussion in favor of capability?
I addressed that right off the bat here >>34461329
>Compared to what? It isn't even in full rate production yet and it's already cheaper than the Rafale, Typhoon and even most recent F-16E/F Block 60/61 buy by UAE.
>Please explain what it is so expensive in relation to. Don't forget to compare actual capabilities when looking at price point.
and here >>34461374
>You don't get to use old prices from LRIP 7 for the F-35 and compare them to 1998 prices for the F-16 Block 40/42.

You're the one hell bent on using far outdated/incorrect prices for the airframes it is replacing and incorrect prices for the F-35. The most recent price for the F-35A, including engine, is 94.6m flyaway (LRIP 10, not even FRP yet), which is less expensive than any other Gen 4+ fighter on the planet except Gripen, much less an actual 5th gen.

>>34461669

Dude, just look at yourself right now. You're sitting here trying to drag me into a discussion about the finer points of Class-A mishaps because you can't argue the central point that a 100 million+ dollar aircraft is not suitable for the low-mix role. That's the most flamboyant attempt I have ever seen to move the goal posts. You're done, kiddo.

Next.

>>34461683

When I clicked on that link, I gave you the benefit of the doubt for 1 second. Was it possible he wasn't talking about some raghead air force with Soviet hand-me-downs? Guess not.

Well that was sad. You guys need to learn to stay on point and sharpen your arguing skills.

File: THE-COMBAT-STATISTICS-FOR-ALL-THE-AIRCRAFT-CURRENTLY-IN-USE-Air-to-air-kills-–-Air-to-air-losses-–-Losses-to-ground-fire.png (2MB, 2473x4847px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2473x4847px

>>34461700
kek. And here comes the asshurt "monkey model" argument. Pic related is the bald fucking truth of the matter. The Su-27 family is the only Soviet/Russian fighter with a positive A2A kill ratio, and that's only because it was flying against other Soviet aircraft.

Go on. Sing us more songs of the superior performance of the terrifying Soviet fighters.

>>34461754
>Dude, just look at yourself right now. You're sitting here trying to drag me into a discussion about the finer points of Class-A mishaps because you can't argue the central point that a 100 million+ dollar aircraft is not suitable for the low-mix role. That's the most flamboyant attempt I have ever seen to move the goal posts. You're done, kiddo.
TLDR: I made an assertion completely unsupported by fact or history and now I will attempt to claim victory and quickly change the subject because I've just had my nose rubbed in that fact.

You, sir, are a master debater.

>>34461754
>Was it possible he wasn't talking about some raghead air force with Soviet hand-me-downs?
Oh my, more monkey model assertions. Even though the Soviet war college analogue, military command and press all claimed that Soviet geared and trained Iraqis would bleed the USAF dry. Top kek.

>>34461754
>Was it possible he wasn't talking about some raghead air force with Soviet hand-me-downs?
Considering the Iranians and Israelis absolutely kicked ass with the F-14 and F-15 respectively, your argument seems really stupid.

>>34461374
>You don't get to use old prices from LRIP 7 for the F-35 and compare them to 1998 prices for the F-16 Block 40/42. Especially considering the fact that the two aircraft versions are so far apart capability wise they're not even on the same planet.
So. Much. This.

The latest F-18E/Fs the USN bought (2016) were 98 million apiece (more expensive than the latest F-35As), and the latest F-16E/Fs sold to UAE were a staggering 102m apiece flyaway, 200m apiece project cost (Block 61).

The F-35 is already comperable or cheaper than the competition and planes it is replacing, while bringing a shit ton more to the table. Why are people even trying to argue otherwise at this point?

File: (you).png (124KB, 314x1081px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 314x1081px

>>34461948

>Why are people even trying to argue otherwise at this point?

Unlike the airplane shit, I can actually offer some insight on that point.

>>34460624
You're never right Sprey. Actual engineers, designers and pilots took your fighter mafia's shit idea and turned it into something actually great.

>>34461669
>many of them flying the same sorts of patrols and training an F-16 was from 1975-1986.
Not really. Not only most of the training is done on simulators but the actual flights are far more secured. You definitely can't compare both periods and planes.

>>34461948
And exactly what makes them cost so much? Do people ever fucking ask that? Literally how does a single small aircraft cost that much?

>>34462279
Your proofs for this are most compelling. Meanwhile, in reality, the F-35 fleet just passed 73,000 flight hours.

>>34462304
It's literally a flying computer which has to network with dozens of weapons systems, sensor platforms, comms pathways and navigation aids. Compared to a 1970s vintage F-16, and F-16E has almost two orders of magnitude more systems per cubic foot within the air frame when looking at overall sophistication.

You make the mistake of assuming that because an F-16A Block 15 and an F-16 Block 61 look similar they're practically the same aircraft. In reality, the Block 61 has been upgraded and modified so much over the last 40 years that in terms of capability and mission, it resembles an F-16A about as much as an F9F Panther resembles an F-8.

It would be like taking an F-1 car, building it to perform at the same kinematic standards, and figuring out how to add in a supercomputer and way to launch a dozen different kinds of anti-tank missiles all at the same time. Then upgrading it with the latest bleeding edge tech every 6-10 years.

>>34462304
>build, by definition, the highest performance manned atmospheric vehicles on the planet, with the best sensors, communications and networking
>ask why they cost so much

Are you retarded?

>>34462386
>in reality, the F-35 fleet just passed 73,000 flight hours
It doesn't exclude that most of the training is done on simulators, that the actual flights take place in 2017 and not in fucking 1980 and you still can't compare what's incomparable, dummy.

>>34462518
>air frame mishap rates don't matter
>pilot safety rates don't matter
>air frame hours don't matter
>because reasons

Wanna guess how I know you don't know the first fucking thing about the aeronautics industry?

>>34462518
>It doesn't exclude that most of the training is done on simulators
Why is this even a bad thing? It saves maintenance and sustainment money, keeps hours off the air frames, everything lasts longer and the pilots still get excellent training.

It's like the fucking twilight zone. Even the great things about the program are somehow demerits.

>>34462558
>Even the great things about the program are somehow demerits
Not what I said. That's the comparison between two totally different eras, procedures, airframes etc that I find delusional.
Simulators are a good thing (as long as it doesn't substitute to the real flight hours needed oc)

>>34459198
i saw it once fly over my home low as fuck
Damn that Engine sound

File: 1407288842827.png (285KB, 450x375px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 450x375px

>>34460364

kekd

>>34462386
Oh wow computers and radar sensors and heat sensors. Those cost so much and is like brand new tech. Oh wait it isn't.
I bet the actual cost of manufacture is less than half a million.
Fucking hell youre the same retards that excuse Suppressors coating a grand more by saying MUH MACHINERY MUH R&D when it all takes is a single engineer to design a suppressor and when CNC machines cost only 50k.

They engine of the f35 doesn't cost much
Neither does the airframe
Or the computers
Or the radar or IR systems
The actual manufacturing cost is basically nothing compared to what Lockheed Martin is charging the military.

And when it costed less to go to the fucking moon than it did to create a fighter jet you know you just got Jewed.

>>34462416
Yeah and it didn't cost a hundred million to do that, not even close.
The plane is not made out of gold or platinum.

>>34460974
Gas money is hard to come by for Europoors.

>>34463834
Really? You know this from the depths of your extensive knowledge? For reference:
>2017 cost of a single F1 car is 9.5 million. An F1 team will spend roughly 320m dollars a year.
>A new build Boeing 737-900ER passenger jet costs 104.1m dollars. That's the aeronautical equivalent of a greyhound bus, and it's more expensive than an F-35A.
>A single Virginia class submarine costs 2.688 billion dollars

Here. Let me rephrase this for the fucking short bus: BLEEDING EDGE TECHNOLOGY IS EXPENSIVE. REALLY, REALLY FUCKING EXPENSIVE.

>>34463834
Then explain why the Rafale, Typhoon, etc. all cost just as much if not more. If they could sell them a lot cheaper, don't you think that would be a massive market advantage for their companies? They'd sell a shit ton more planes, parts, engines and associated services. So tell me why they don't do this.

Use actual logic this time.

>>34463918
Keep believing that and getting Jewed.

LOL you even proved my point, a much larger passenger aircraft with more parts and more mass costs almost equal to a much smaller fighter jet.

Do you actually believe what you're saying?
And how about the f35 program cost? Do you seriously fucking think it costs more to develop some shitty fighter jet than it does to go to the fucking moon and back?

>>34463825
>They engine of the f35 doesn't cost much
It's literally 1/5th the cost of the entire plane

>Neither does the airframe
And you know this how? Especially considering how expensive previous generation VLO manned airframes were?

>Or the computers
>Or the radar or IR systems
Now I know you're completely full of shit, and have zero experience on complex, heavily networked systems projects.

>The actual manufacturing cost is basically nothing compared to what Lockheed Martin is charging the military.
Muh EBIL MIC meme strikes again. Get the fuck off /pol/ once in a while and read a goddamn book, junior.

>>34463952
>LOL you even proved my point, a much larger passenger aircraft with more parts and more mass costs almost equal to a much smaller fighter jet.
By your logic, an F1 car should cost a shit ton less than a city bus.

You're a complete fucking retard, and it's time to stop posting.

>Do you seriously fucking think it costs more to develop some shitty fighter jet than it does to go to the fucking moon and back?
Apollo, Gemini and Mercury combined cost 211.9 billion dollars in 2016 adjusted currency. We've barely spent half of that in F-35 development once you remove procurement, O&S, training, etc. In fact, for the cost of a single space shuttle flight (450 million dollars a pop, just for the flight, not the actual vehicle), you could buy two complete F-35As plus an F-35B and an F-35C. Wanna guess why that is?

EVERYTHING IS A SHIT TON MORE COMPLEX THESE DAYS. TECHNOLOGY IS FUCKING EXPENSIVE.

And that's the last time I'll be repeating the common sense truth apparent to anyone with half a brain to a retard in this thread.

>>34462304
Making physics your bitch is an expensive hobby.

>>34463825
A McDonald's cash register will be the most advanced piece of technology your ever use.

>>34463936
crickets

>>34460448

Makes you wonder who the fuck they are shooting down

Somebody has to be losing

File: 1458434860354.gif (2MB, 249x184px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 249x184px

>/pol/tard comes on /k/ to shill F-35 jewery theories
>gets absolutely destroyed on every point with basic, easily researched facts
>whimpers off back to the /pol/ hugbox

I love these threads.

>>34459761
>F-16's actual CPFH is $25k
>F-35 currently at $32k while still in extensive testing and late iterative dev phases

>>34459790
>1-4: Literally irrelevant in normal opration
>5: Implying this isn't a normal thing to find years ago and fix
>6: Questionable with latest helmets
>7: Implying it hasn't been fixed, or that it'll go max Mach that often
>8: Standard precautions on all aircraft in peacetime
>9: Not meant for vertical landings anyways
>10: 5+ years of software updates on this

Nice retard posting, kid.

>>34460398
>Everyone who might face the US or an F-35 buyer: CANCEL IT WE'RE SCURRED!

>>34461395
You're not getting a western fighter other than the F-35A for under $100m now. Period.

>>34466475
Well, there's Gripen. But that's not even close to an equal comparison.

>>34466548
There is Gripen 2020, but at the SAAB pace it will be more like Gripen 2050

>>34466548
It's basically a worse F-16.

>>34467283
Nah. The Gripens are fine birds. The NG is a fine solution, falling somewhere between the F-16 Block 50/52 and Block 60/61. They do make good sense for some air forces.

>>34460878
>Buy 18 F-104Gs and 3 TF-104Gs
>During the first two years in service ('65 and '66) pilots averaged 5 hours a month.
>The next two years the average increases to 15 hours per month and pilot. Best pilots average 20 hours, rising to 25 in summer.
>Constant clerical fuck ups=lol no spare parts
>Chase an ayyy lmao in 1968, wreck the afterburner, manage to get back to base
>45 pilots fly the type, only one dead in a crash with a light aircraft.

File: 1487608984188.png (260KB, 424x444px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 424x444px

>>34459685
Why does it look like an over-designed space manatee?

>>34460951

>by 2050 most navy planes will at least be VTOL capable in theory

god pls

>>34460951
>>34470681
I get that VTOL is sexy and everything, but the fuel fraction cost of VTOL operations is immense. There may be a variant in the next gen which is designed as a lighter strike/CAP fighter which can lily pad off of rotary wing facilities on all USN ships, but it'll never become the primary USN/USMC fixed wing solution. There's simply too much aerodynamic and fuel fraction advantage to CATOBAR and STOVL operations when it comes to range and payload, and aerial refueling (no matter the form) is still the most expensive way to fill your gas tank in existence.

Any material science or propulsion technology which makes VTOL more viable would also make more standard fixed wing operations that much more efficient (larger payload, more sensors/comms, more range, etc.). There will be at least two major variants for US tactical naval aviation for the foreseeable future.

>>34459198
The F-35 is actually the front operation to a new force of over 50,000 rocket-powered gliders which will get inside the enemy's OODA loop supported by a fleet of BB-61s and spam sidewinders until the enemy gives up and goes home

>>34470681
By 2050 we better have dropships famalam

File: H4_Broadsword_concept_art-2.jpg (195KB, 1280x1136px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1280x1136px

>>34468832
Honestly, that model is shit, 343i put low poly models in the background of multiplayer maps so as to save space and shit.

Here's a pseudo-better view.

>>34466349
>>9: Not meant for vertical landings anyways
it's being marketed as a VTOL/STOVL, I should certainly hope it's built for vertical landings...

>>34459832
You type the words but don't get the big picture.
An airframe that can take USA carrier service pays a price in added mass when compared to designing a plane for runway service.
Aircraft could be developed using common replaceable parts on didferent airframes. The chooce to use a common base airframe and adapt it for EVERY FUCKING ROLE POSSIBLE instead of designing dedicated aircraft is a weakness, and none of your shilling and pointing to glitter will change that fact.

>>34473094
>Aircraft could be developed using common replaceable parts on didferent airframes. The chooce to use a common base airframe and adapt it for EVERY FUCKING ROLE POSSIBLE instead of designing dedicated aircraft is a weakness, and none of your shilling and pointing to glitter will change that fact.
Except that this supposedly kinematically compromised airframe, riddled with artifacts of the other variants, is handily outperforming the aircraft it is replacing. With combat loadouts, it has better acceleration, instantaneous roll rate, acceleration and half again as much range as an F-16, better nose pointing, sustained turn rate and high AoA performance than any F-18 variant plus a massive increase in range, and better in every measurable way than an AV-8B. And that's before we get to the massively upgraded sensors, situational awareness, networked systems, VLO characteristics, etc.

Autistically screaming the same song over and over again does not make it true. In every conceivable combat loadout, the F-35 is better than the three aircraft it replaces by a huge margin.

>>34460951
You understand fission and fusion like I understand my wife.

>>34473094
>An airframe that can take USA carrier service pays a price in added mass when compared to designing a plane for runway service.
You act as if the reinforced undercarriage and frame members for the F-35C are present in the F-35A and F-35B, which is ridiculous.

Stop reading Sprey and airpoweraustralia and join the rest of us in the real world.

>>34461329
It is expensive and overpriced compared to itself, asshole. It is taking forever to finish, and LM is apparently on a cost- plus contract.

>>34461359
Your "detect the firing of blah blah and link it blah" is tech that can be added to any fucking airplane, balloon, helicopter, or truck. Stop using this shit as justification. >>34463918

>>34473193
>It is expensive and overpriced compared to itself, asshole
Let me ask again, so even the completely retarded can understand it:

If a product takes a long time to get to market, and costs a lot in stores, then you can say it's an expensive product. However, if every other product of near or similar quality also took a long time to get to market and was expensive in stores, then you would say that the market sector, the type of goods themselves are expensive, and that it is normal for those types of goods to cost a lot in time and money.

There is no such thing as a product which is expensive in a vacuum, it can only be expensive in relation to other products and services of a similar nature in a market analysis sense.

So, I ask again, which 4.5 or 5th gen aircraft with even similar capabilities is cheaper than the F-35? How can you call it expensive when it is both the most advanced/sophisticated AND cheapest option on the market?

If you can't understand it even at this basic level, then it's time to stop posting, shut your computer down and read a fucking book.

>>34473193
>LM is apparently on a cost- plus contract.
No, they aren't. As has been stated MULTIPLE times in the press, LM is responsible for the lion's share proportion of cost and schedule over-runs after the 2010 project restructuring. It's time to actually read something on this subject rather than spouting retarded memes constantly.

>>34473240
>Your "detect the firing of blah blah and link it blah" is tech that can be added to any fucking airplane, balloon, helicopter, or truck
Confirmed for completely retarded.

Time to eject from this thread.

>>34473240
>Your "detect the firing of blah blah and link it blah" is tech that can be added to any fucking airplane, balloon, helicopter, or truck.
When why don't the Russian attach it to a balloon and send it up? Surely it would be cheaper to do that than building a new plane right?
There's a reason nations that once lambasted the US over its reliance on cutting edge tech are now scrambling to come up with their own versions.

>>34473154
It had better be an improvement on decades old aircraft. But it would be better by a larger margin if it wasn't trying to do everything.
Any opposing force will cherry pick what works and fold it into their future aircraft. Why hold hold ourselves back?
Sensors, networking, all your other distractions are NOT inseperable from the F35.

>>34473307
>There's a reason nations that once lambasted the US over its reliance on cutting edge tech are now scrambling to come up with their own versions.
This. If it were truly so easy and low cost, the Russians and Chinese wouldn't be sweating blood over getting even their first 5th gen into service 34 years after the US first put VLO aircraft into service and 12 years after they put the first 5th gen tactical fighter into service.

>>34473172
It is ridiculous that you think you know what a USN fighter needs. Obviously, you don't.

>>34473243
So military procurement is like car shopping? ooookay

>>34473264
Liar. If LM was held responsible for that, they would be bankrupt by now.

>>34473307
Apologies if hyperbole is over your head.
How about; all of your turd polish could be used on many other airframes? The F-35 doesn't have a cock for you to suck, why are you so sensitive about it?

File: THE EVIL MIC.jpg (138KB, 1032x510px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1032x510px

>>34473320
>But it would be better by a larger margin if it wasn't trying to do everything.
And your proof of this is what?
Furthermore, your argument is what? It's really really good (better than anything else out there), but it should have been a lot better? Do you have any clue how retarded that is?

>Any opposing force will cherry pick what works and fold it into their future aircraft.
Why haven't they yet? The F-22, for instance, has been in service for 12 years. The B-2 has been in service for 20 years. The F-117 for 34 years. What the fuck is holding them back from this supposedly easy task?

>Sensors, networking, all your other distractions are NOT inseperable from the F35.
Again, the simple logical question: if this is true, why the fuck isn't this standard equipment on anything else?

Your position is completely built on logical fallacy, and is ridiculous.

>>34473333
We don't have to guess. It's literally right there written down on public program requirements and supported by dozens and dozens of public statements. You're the one who is apparently unaware of what the USN wants and has planned.

>>34473356
>So military procurement is like car shopping? ooookay
It's a fucking market, you complete retard. Manufacturers bring options to the table and, among other factors, the government makes buys based on cost, performance and development timelines. Are you really this stupid?

>>34473366
Jesus Christ. See pic related. Military revenue is less than 2/3 of LM's revenue stream, and the F-35 represents less than 15% of that year on year. The F-35 could be cancelled tomorrow and LM stock wouldn't dip more than 12%. Your ignorance is staggering in this issue.

>>34473395
Oh, look. We've now reached the
>only pretending to be retarded guize
stage of the discussion. Joy.

>>34473333
Any USN carrier capable aircraft, not just fighters. Sorry!

>>34473320
>Any opposing force will cherry pick what works and fold it into their future aircraft. Why hold hold ourselves back?
we're not. have you read about the stealth coating on the F-117?

>>34473399
You are either stupid, or totally invested in your "F-35 cannot be criticized" mindset. Your words look nice, but nothing is behind them.

>>34473445
>I have no logical or factual rebuttal so I will make a weak ad hominem attack and piss off with my tail between my legs

Nice chatting with you, junior. Maybe next time try and educate yourself at even a basic level on the subject so you don't completely embarrass yourself.

>>34473471
Your 13:56 post is a lot of "nuh uh!" with clear fallacies and incomplete answers.
The easiest one- navalizing aircraft is more than adding structural stiffeners.

>>34473471
"muh ad hominem" is brought out after one is shown to be so incorrect, their posts may be safely disregarded.
(You)

>>34473521
>The easiest one- navalizing aircraft is more than adding structural stiffeners.
Underccarriage reinforcement and beefing up the frame are by a huge proportion the two highest mass costs of the conversion. Adding a tail hook, more wing area, wing hinges, larger flaps and specialized navigation aids are all less than 30% of the total mass cost. So, yes, your complaint was about mass and my observation was spot fucking on. Cry some more. Go ahead. Actually try and respond to the other points.

>>34473552
And now it becomes clear that you're either in middle school or English isn't your first language and your google translate hookup is breaking down. Wonderbar.

>>34472985
Nope, all current materials only reference STOVL.

>>34473193
>LM is apparently on a cost- plus contract.
They were only on Cost+ for LRIP1-3. As of LRIP 4 and later LM had to eat anything past the target price, and they've been delivering below that in LRIP 5 on.