Just wonder how stealthy she is

File: 0_16f525_8f6e2278_orig.jpg (61KB, 700x419px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 700x419px

>>34682110
cont.

That was after the engine fire you fucking retard

File: stacks-image-e1bfff9-1200x900.jpg (203KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1200x900px

>>34682110
The T-50 is not even pre-production, the nearest to serial production is T-50-10. We only have T-50-8 as of now. The rivets aren't that much of a concern since the test plane is literally equivalent to X-35.

Also that pic might be some test bed.

>>34682110
What >>34682163 said; pointing out rivets on pre-production aircraft is dumb. That said, the argument isn't that rivets = bad (all aircraft use rivets); it's that rivets that are not flush with the aircraft's skin = bad.

>>34682163
I'd argue that the current PAK-FAs are like the first few F-35s; the X-35 was drastically different to the first F-35 (the X-35 didn't even have weapon bays) and even the first F-35 (serial AA-1) had a different sized tail to later F-35s.

>>34682189
>>34682163
Also the F-35 in OP's picture isn't a testbed; it was an operational F-35A that caught fire when they tried to start the engine with a 25+ knot wind blowing directly up the tailpipe (which is a no-no for almost any jet). Engine exhausts were blown into the IPP (APU) intake, which made it lose power and rotate the engine a little slower. The engine meanwhile had just begun to inject more fuel and the slow rotation + tailwind made fuel pool which ignited into a bit of a fire that came out the exhaust and back towards the cockpit. It was put out in about 20 seconds by the ground crew but the pilot (who decided to shut down and jump out) suffered minor burns and the jet has $17m in damages. It'll get repaired and put back into service though.

>>34682163
>50-8 as of now. The rivets aren't that much of a concern since the test plane is literally equivalent to X-35
Not really, no. Russian development doesn't even follow the same procedure as in the US to begin with. Additionally, the X-35 was a tech demonstrator, a stage much, much earlier than a pre-production prototype. It was on the same level as the X-32.
The PAK-FA is supposed to be in service within two or three years, the latest PAK-FAs we have seen is very close to the final product.

File: 1477878416715.jpg (52KB, 628x443px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 628x443px

>>34682152
And before fire, those metal bars, read "reflective surfaces", were magically not there?
>>34682205
I`ve heard that. The engine fires happens. Its bad, since it shows low quility of crew\pilot training, but shit happens. What I point out, is that "magic composite hull" F-35, happens to be made from ordinary metal, just like said T-50 or more likely like those "stainless steel bird" - MiG-31, since T-50 mostly utilize alluminium and titanium alloys, where composites aren`t in use. All difference is once again in the paint cover.
Pic is somewhat related...

File: 180616.jpg (985KB, 1000x1513px) Image search: [Google]

985KB, 1000x1513px

>>34682238
No radio absorbing coat as of yet, avionics block isn`t final version, engines are still "stage one", but those will be switched for more advanced ones after limited production planes will be thoroughly tested.

File: 357357.jpg (2MB, 3000x2136px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2136px

>>34682244
>it shows low quility of crew\pilot training
A bit of bad training but also a failure on Lockheed / P&W and/or the JPO / USAF to give pilots / ground crew clear guidance on what is and isn't safe (there wasn't a specified unsafe tailwind windspeed, just some generic warning IIRC).

>What I point out, is that "magic composite hull" F-35, happens to be made from ordinary metal
The F-22, F-35 and PAK-FA all use aluminium and titanium structures (bulkheads, wing spars, ribs, etc) but use composite skins (skins on an aircraft provide a lot of their strength, even on non-pressurised aircraft like fighters).
Where the jet looks rusty is where either highly ferrous content in the RAM or skin is oxidising, or it may be from metal laminated into the composite around where the rivets go (to reduce fracturing / long term wear).

>>34682189
>>34682205
>>34682306
Dragon, always a pleasure

>>34682110
>Just wonder how stealthy she is
Same as F-117, RCS 1 m2. (yes this what Russians believe about stealth quote from Pogosyan.)

File: IMG_9486.jpg (89KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 640x427px

>>34682238

>The PAK-FA is supposed to be in service within two or three years...

With how many planes? 15?
We're not going to see the PAK-FA being produced in relevant quantities until early next decade.

https://youtu.be/_Vhpex6VU-Q

>>34682238
>The PAK-FA is supposed to be in service within two or three years, the latest PAK-FAs we have seen is very close to the final product.
That's what they always say but that's not what they always do. Engine cowlings were only introduced in the static T-50-7 and the flying T-50-8, main internal bays haven't even been tested yet same with side AA internal bays. The IRST is supposed to turn 180 when not in use but no news if it is already in tests yet. There are still a lot of work to be done on the plane and Russia will push back the date and do business as always. They did say there will be changes from T-50-8 to T-50-10.

And as said before, the ones that are flying are Company (Sukhoi's) jets, they are not yet the military's. They are test beds/pre-productions. After T-50-10 or T-50-11, Sukhoi is tasked to deliver 12 Su-?? to the Russian Air Force to familiarize themselves while they wait for the engine upgrade.

inb4 thread turns even more to shit

>>34682110
That's not rust, that's burnt metal.

Have you ever seen rust?

>>34682306
Other aircraft like the F117 used a steel-based composite in the strips around the edges of many structural panels on the exterior of the aircraft to strengthen attachment points. This is probably a similar deal, and why there appears to be oxidized metal around the seams from the engine fire.

File: 1495961538199.jpg (131KB, 600x415px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 600x415px

So is the F-35 a piece of shit? Don't take the price tag and overdue project into account btw, just straight up how does it compare to other fighter jets?

>>34684452
It's the most capable multiple ever built

>>34684462
>multiple
multirole

File: APA-Rus-VHF-band-Radar-Params-2008-Perspective.jpg (67KB, 710x431px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 710x431px

>>34684452
It's almost certainly underrated. Unlike Russians trying to stay relevant or Europeans trying to get funding, the US is already the big kid on the block. It doesn't need to boast any further, so it routinely conceals some of its advantages.

>>34682163
Those aren't even rivets, those are screws. Do you idiots really not recognize a screwdriver when you see it? I know screwdriver is not rifle, but come on now.

File: F-35 vs S-400.jpg (65KB, 710x360px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 710x360px

>>34684502
For mid-tier powers that might never fight a major war (or if they do, it's a one-off) missiles are cheaper and more effective.
From an economic perspective, for a superpower that needs the ability to kick over regional powers without being crippled itself; stealth is cheaper.

>>34684083
That's plainly rust. Metal oxidizes in heat, why do you think welders use shielding gasses?

Has Russia built anything close to production engines yet?

>>34682253
>isn`t final version
>those will be switched
NEVER EVER

>>34682306
>just 15 weeks until my country gets its first F35

Hippies are gonna be pissed when it touches down

File: file.png (1001KB, 2132x1082px) Image search: [Google]

1001KB, 2132x1082px

>>34684526
Not using high quality version

>All these people don't realise that T-50 is still a prototype

File: no.jpg (336KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1920x1200px

>>34684462

>>34685923
>MUH SPECTRA
>ACTIVE STEALTH
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN ITS MKRE EXPENSIVE THAN THE F-35
right on time

see >>34684058

File: 1436023743976.jpg (373KB, 700x1200px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 700x1200px

>>34686127

>Implying

File: 1324131546056.png (143KB, 551x364px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 551x364px

The F-35 is such a turd

File: 1443987646303.png (93KB, 618x854px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 618x854px

A complete disaster for the entire western hemisphere

File: e9d[1].jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>34686154
>>34686166
>>34686178

>>34682244
>that grammar
>those backwards apostrophes
>>>aluminium
Fucking gopniks

>>34682306
Tonight I'm going to dinner with the guy who patented a unique composite design.

His design is being used on the dreamchaser space vehicle, and being used in the entire Northrop Grumman's new bomber.

He did consulting for Lockheed and he originally designed it for fighter wings, I suspect the F-35 has more composite structure than we think.

If thread is still up, I'll post our discussions.

>>34687171
I await with eager ears

>>34686127
>MKRE EXPENSIVE THAN THE F-35
Economy of scale. F-35 has been forced deep down the anus of NATO pets, making it look "cheap", but all in all it's an expensive sex toy, to operate, to maintain, to fly... For What? A middle tier plane supposedly stealth.

>>34687714

>A middle tier plane

https://youtu.be/H47ow4_Cmk0

>>34687714
>Is cheaper off the line
>Far more capable
>Will likely be cheaper to operate than an F-16 once Tri-service FOC complete

>>34685923
Tell me again about the Rafale and it's ability to penetrate IADS with it's...oh wait, it doesn't have any compatible ARM? It doesn't have stealth? During the Libya intervention, it was the US that had to take out all of the air defense sites?

Well...at least it has canards.

>>34687856
>During the Libya intervention, it was the US that had to take out all of the air defense sites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Harmattan
>French Dassault Rafale planes began reconnaissance missions on 19 March and were the first among the coalition to attack Libyan forces
It seems there were not so many air defense sites to fear...

>>34687917
The first thing the US did on the 19th was launch a massive tomahawk strike to destroy all the air defenses located near the coastline. Libya had a massive number of SAM sites

>>34687917
How many F-35's were used in the Libya intervention?

You're a fucking retard, we're talking about F-35's. Using SEAD/DEAD to reduce the probability of legacy airframes being shot down doesn't mean that they can't operate in contested airspace if they had to. Why risk getting A-10s or F-15Es shot down?

>>34688037
>plane that hasn't reached in-service status to go into combat
>Hurr did they use it in this fight durr

File: 343wvw3.gif (846KB, 447x207px) Image search: [Google]

846KB, 447x207px

>>34687714
>he hasn't read the Lockmart CNT patents detailing improvised skin-RWR functions

tfw Slavs are so far behind, they can't see how far you are ahead even with tips from open source anon.

>>34687917
>he doesn't know about the Growler

File: 0BD19F1E-0556-4355-AFF3-04CDDC10E44B-401-000000F9F169A2A5.jpg (41KB, 620x423px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 620x423px

>>34684083
>mfw /k/ just googled "oxidation" for the first time

File: 1498876353760.jpg (125KB, 400x519px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 400x519px

>>34682205
>25+ knot wind blowing directly up the tailpipe
Holy shit the ass chewing that must have occured. Every basic bitch ramp rat knows thats a big no-no.

>>34688037
>How many F-35's were used in the Libya intervention?
lol?

>>34688086
>>34688252
>Rafalefag compares Rafale to F-35
>Rafalefag told that the Rafale doesn't have the same the same SEAD/DEAD capabilites as the F-35
>Responds by posting an operation in which fifteen Rafales flew recce and ground attack missions over Libya, AFTER the US had already destroyed the major ADS.
>this somehow proves the Rafale's superiority over the F-35.

>The United States HAD to take out the Libyan ADS.
How is an operation that happened before the F-35 entered service relevant to the US's ability to operate in non-permissive airspace once the F-35 enters service? I don't understand.

>>34687939
>The first thing the US did on the 19th was launch a massive tomahawk strike to destroy all the air defenses
Before or after the reconnaissance by the rafale? (joke, notice the word "reconnaissance")

>>34687171
>>34687473
We had a nice great evening at a Italian place. Unfortunately cut short because of a early morning flight.

He says the F-35 is like what >>34682306 says. Mostly aluminum/titanium with composite skin. Some bonded layers, but not much.
The Dreamchaser is entirely bonded composite with his design. Long ago he offered his design to Lockheed, but they showed no interest. Lockheed planed on building the LRS-B the same way they built the F-35.

Northrop Grumman took interest in his bonded joints/panels/structure and plan on designing the entire bomber out of the stuff. Their manufacturing costs were way lower, the airframe was actually stronger, and weighed significantly less.
That is how they won the contract.

He gets several dollars for every foot used.

>>34688092

Care to elaborate? This sounds interesting.

File: T-50-air-to-air.jpg (69KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1200x675px

I have to say, regardless of who has the more capable jet, the T-50 is a fucking beautiful piece of machinery.

>>34688627

That's neat, if it proves as effective as Northrop obviously thinks it is I wouldn't be surprised to see it in the F/A-XX.

>>34690300

I'm divided on the T-50, from some angles it looks good from others it looks like shit.

>>34690300
It's a flounder.

>>34690541
Its NATO reporting name should be Flapjack

>>34690592
How the hell have I not thought of that one before...

File: the right one.jpg (334KB, 620x1063px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 620x1063px

>>34686154
fixed that for you.

File: 1280px-V-173maidenflight-1942.jpg (186KB, 1280x930px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1280x930px

>>34690592
there was already one flapjack

>>34682110
T-50 is Russian. Russians haven't ever produced anything good. That's about it.

>>34686154
>>34686166
>>34686178
Who the hell even makes these?

>>34692085
Discredit anything without a source.

>>34692085
First one's from a blogger named Picard578; I wouldn't be surprised if he was one and the same as a certain French enthusiast on this board.

Second I don't know.

Third one is from Air Power Australia.

>>34692072
You can never be satisfied with just one flapjack though.

>>34692281
Hey dragon.

What do you know about active stealth (radar wave cancellation) and is it just speculation at this point or are there official statements about it on various aircraft?

Yeah, I've encountered Rafalefags recently. Funnily enough they shut up when I gave enough information to show that the F-35 had higher availability rates than the Rafale in 2015.

>>34692281
>some blogger
lel

>Air Power Australia
literally who.

>>34692281
Oh god, RafaleFag has a blog?

>>34692326
Yeah, I've encountered Rafalefags recently. Funnily enough they shut up when I gave enough information to show that the F-35 had higher availability rates than the Rafale in 2015.

You should share that info with us, could be usefull. This thread is now a F-35 general thread, btw

>>34692326
>What do you know about active stealth (radar wave cancellation) and is it just speculation at this point or are there official statements about it on various aircraft?
There's kinda 2 things that people on the internet call active cancellation:

1. DRFM, etc jamming - a radar emits a signal at you, you alter it and send back a copy that makes it look like you're not there at all, or that you're closer / further away, etc. This isn't active cancellation but some bloggers / posters call it that anyway. Either way most modern fighters can do this, including the F-35 / F-22.

2. Actual RF active cancellation, where you literally transmit equally powerful, 180 degrees out-of-phase signals to cancel out your radar return. This is possible, but it's practically impossible on a fighter, particularly one that's curvy and non-stealthy like the Rafale, because a reflection off the nose of your plane isn't going to have the same phase, etc as one bouncing off your wing, etc and you have to somehow replicate all those reflections simultaneously from one or a couple of radar arrays at the nose.

Even if you did miraculously succeed in doing that with a Rafale, it'd only work within your radar's FOV and only against one radar at a time. The "real" active cancellation is (if at all,) coming in the form of next-gen aircraft skins that have analogue circuitry, or very simple digital systems, all over them that absorb and reflect inverted emissions. Some RAM already does this in concept though - the RAM is made in layers of specific thicknesses so that part of the radio waves go in through a translucent layer, reflect off a reflective layer and self-cancel. The F-35 and maybe even the Rafale (which has some RAM) has that happening, but it's not perfect and the Rafale certainly doesn't have anywhere near the same level of RAM as the F-35 or F-22.

>>34692395
I maybe hope it isn't him, but if you Google "Picard578" you'll get results.

File: availabilityOct2016.png (73KB, 726x634px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 726x634px

>>34692402
Availability rates are in the DOT&E reports, although the fleet is still at a point where a lot of jets are still Block 2B or earlier, because there isn't that much depot capacity yet (for doing hardware upgrades) and I think they're just waiting mainly for SDD to be finished (later this year) so that they're not having to bring them in twice in the course of just 1 or 2 years. Hill AFB for example has some of the newest F-35s in the fleet and their readiness rates during deployments to Europe (and to exercises in the US) have been exceeding the rates of F-16s, etc also deployed. I expect more of the fleet will gain readiness rates like theirs when the majority of F-35s are upgraded to / running a Block 3F configuration.

Another big issue they're facing with availability is a lack of spare parts due to suppliers having trouble keeping up with the increasing production rate. I don't know how they'll handle the next 2 or 3 years, but if they don't improve very soon, things should at least settle / stabilise in around 2020.

Attached is the jet's readiness rates from late 2015 to October 2016 (from the last DOT&E report).

File: 033AFA_070523_0098.jpg (33KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1000x664px

>>34688344
>Responds by posting an operation in which fifteen Rafales flew recce and ground attack missions over Libya, AFTER the US had already destroyed the major ADS.
>I don't know how time works
The first flight Rafale's did started at 1230Z and lasted for 6h30 of which 2h30 was spend inside Libyan airspace, the first targets were hit before 1445Z. US missile strikes on the other hand only started in the evening of 19th around 2100Z

>>34692332
>literally who.
DO you seriously not know and not worship the venerable Dr. Kopp?

>>34692680
Another source is saying 1900Z for the first US strikes, either way they happened after the Rafales did their little recce

>>34684083
I work with mild steel at work. I have indeed seen rust.

>>34692680
>>34692817
...sshhhhhh do not tell them. They're from F-16.net and keypublishing. The truth bends before their opinions.

>>34684083
This being an example of aforementionned opinion that can bend truth.

>>34692505
Thanks senpai.

>>34692402
http://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr/q14/14-72354QE.htm

Here are the rates for 2013 and 2014 (availability rate = taux de disponibilité). Dragon gave you the ones for the F-35. I think I might have fucked up the dates but the damage control was legendary anyway. "you can't compare, the Rafale is highly neglected"...

>>34692569
>>34693308
Interesting. Do you have the figures for other planes in USAF?

>>34693308
>>34692569
>>34692505
nice, thanks

>>34694118
Here's a spreadsheet of CPFH and mission capable rates (not exactly the same as availability or readiness rates, but close enough): https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B153uz04GCxTR3N2SXhLYWhSRVk

>>34693308
In France availability rate % means "percentage of planes ready under 6 hours".
Rafale in operation achieved more than 95% availabilty in 2014 22015 2016 and still in 2017. Less than 1% of missions cancelled during Chammal Operation.
In 2016 the air force flew an average of 275 hours per Rafale, up from 250. Thanks to this the armee de l'air which had planned a maximum of 46000 flight hours for its total fleet was able to provide 48000 flight hours thanks to more spare parts deliveries.

Also, around half of the fleet is preserved for several weeks up to several months under controlled dry atmosphere to conserve potential since planes rotate a lot and must age at the same rate.

So here are my questions :

What does "availability" means in the US ?
How does this translates for the F-35 ?
How many flight hours were achieved per planes for the A ? (the better of the 3).
What do you wish to demonstrate ?

>>34697628
see
>>34692909

>>34697628
>What does "availability" means in the US ?
"Aircraft availability is determined by measuring the percent of time individual aircraft are in an available status, aggregated over a reporting period (e.g., monthly). The program assigns aircraft that are not available to one of three categories of status: Not Mission Capable for Maintenance (NMC-M); Not Mission Capable for Supply (NMC-S); and depot status."
It also later mentions that the goal for this point in the program was to have an average availability rating of 60% (the achieved fleet average was 55%).
>How does this translates for the F-35 ?
Not sure what you mean where, but I've got availability rates per F-35 base here: >>34692569
I've also attached it and every other reliability / maintenance chart in the report in one image with this post. One to take note of is the F-35 Availability and Mission Capable Rates by Lot; you can see from it that half the fleet is from Block 5 or earlier and is dragging down the fleet availability rate.
>How many flight hours were achieved per planes for the A ? (the better of the 3).
For the 12 months ending in October 2016, the F-35A fleet flew 33,754 total hours, with that spread over 105 aircraft (for an average of 321.47 hours per F-35A).
By comparison the F-35B fleet of 50 jets flew 19,644 hours (392.88 hours per plane) and the F-35C fleet of 23 jets flew 6,070 hours (263.91 hours per plane).

File: allthechartsDOTE2016.png (823KB, 2292x2559px) Image search: [Google]

823KB, 2292x2559px

>>34701551
Woops; here's the tables

>>34692909
>are
>>34692909
The guys from F-16.net and keypublishing are still better than the guys from russiadefence, balancer and paralay. They just can't accept that America knows more about Russian tech than Russians do.

>>34682430
>We're not going to see the PAK-FA being produced in relevant quantities until early next decade.
Or, you know, ever

>>34697628
>Rafale in operation achieved more than 95% availability

Check out Red Flag for the F-35 availability rates in operation too.

>>34699641
Quite ironic considering I got interested in the F-35 and Rafale comparison because of some Frenchtards claiming the Rafale has "active cancellation", which is "real stealth", unlike the F-35 "obsolete stealth". They also claimed the F-35 isn't actually combat ready at all and it's just all lies and that it doesn't work (hence the availability rates comparison). They also failed to understand basic concepts like man hours not being the actual time it takes to fix an aircraft and so on. Some kept posting shit from a blog that uses internet wisdom (meaning random guesses and numbers flying around that aren't verified at all) as fact and obviously was a Rafaletard too. I'd find the blog but I don't want to dig in old comments. And that's just a small part of the retardation.

I think the Rafale is a really nice aircraft and it's surprisingly good for the French. On the other hand, I wish its fanbase wasn't so retarded.

>>34701621

the frenchman was sort of right in that the F-35 was ridiculously late and ridiculously over-budget

>>34701551
Cool, I got my answer. Quite surprised with the B flying more than the A by the way.
>you can see from it that half the fleet is from Block 5 or earlier and is dragging down the fleet availability rate
Yup I saw this. Makes sense whatsoever.
>>34701553
That's a nice piece of information. Do you plan to make one for 2017 when the info is available ?

>>34701559
>The guys from F-16.net and keypublishing are still better than the guys from russiadefence, balancer and paralay. They just can't accept that America knows more about Russian tech than Russians do.
This is true though. However I met some very knowledgeable people on the T-50 and other russian modern jets. Kinda russiaboos too, yet none of them were russians.

File: celebration-with-vatniki.jpg (72KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x450px

>T-50 goes into production
>Russian economy collapses

>>34692569
Live less than a mile from Hill. F35's are bad neighbors. Much much louder than the F16's.

File: 2_2.jpg (91KB, 742x476px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 742x476px

>>34701889

>>34701788
>Do you plan to make one for 2017 when the info is available ?
Don't see why not; next report should come in January.

>>34701679
Should be used to it by now, took the Rafale 8 years to get an AESA and full combat capability after early production started.

File: AIR_NH90-NFH_Profile_Left_lg.jpg (89KB, 800x496px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 800x496px

>>34701679
>the frenchman was sort of right in that the F-35 was ridiculously late and ridiculously over-budget

Things that are on time and even close to on budget are rare and usually follow projects that were cluster fucks in both budgeting and schedule. That being said, back in the day JSF/F-35 set the record on how much superlatives and empty buzzwords they can fit into sales pitch of a program.

>>34701928
If you want to make fun of French with delayed project that isn't within budget, use pic related instead of Rafale.

>>34703203
Fucking NH-90

>>34682244
the fire melted the fragile radar observant skin layer off you absolute retard

>>34688627
>He says the F-35 is like what >>34682306 says. Mostly aluminum/titanium with composite skin. Some bonded layers, but not much.
>The Dreamchaser is entirely bonded composite with his design. Long ago he offered his design to Lockheed, but they showed no interest. Lockheed planed on building the LRS-B the same way they built the F-35.
>Northrop Grumman took interest in his bonded joints/panels/structure and plan on designing the entire bomber out of the stuff. Their manufacturing costs were way lower, the airframe was actually stronger, and weighed significantly less.
>That is how they won the contract.
>He gets several dollars for every foot used.
I find it really strange the F-35 and other jetfighters are still built much the same way as 1960s planes. Initially I thought it might be an issue with supersonic flight but I discovered the virgin galactic spaceship is almost entirely CF, I found another supersonic aircraft in development using CF they actually said carbon fiber is easier for mach 2 flight as heat expansion is limited compared to metals.

Are defense contractors scamming everyone by using outdated materials? I looked into it a little further US jet fighters use titanium bulkheads that have by forged in a giant 50,000 ton forge built in the 1960s, making the dies and parts for forging are expensive and the entire facility has to be kept running largely for jet fighters because no other industry is wasteful enough to use it. Everytime you hear them say they can't build more f-22s or some other plane because it costs too much this is what causes it.

Why would lockheed and other use inferior construction? I can think of a few reasons, CF planes would cost much less, lower prices mean lower gross income. Production of CF parts do not require any overly special tooling. Lastly Lockheed and other military aircraft companies have limited experience with CF, many civilian companies have decades of CF experience they're lockheed can't compete.

>>34703565
>I find it really strange the F-35 and other jetfighters are still built much the same way as 1960s planes.
The fuck are you on about? 60s planes are aluminum.

>>34703598
F35 is mostly aluminum with a few forged titanium bulkheads. There's a carbon fiber panel across the top of the wings but that's it.

>>34701907
for anyone who do not know the story behind that picture: that guy nailed (yes with real nails) hisown balls to pavement and those policement in the background waiting for a guy with pliers to remove nails and then arest him

>>34703854

He nailed his scrotum, big difference mate. If you want to wince, just picture lining up a nail on one of your testicles, raising a hammer up, and then driving it right through, it makes me nauseous just thinking about it.

File: f35materials.jpg (196KB, 903x685px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 903x685px

>>34703598
>>34703796

>>34703854
.....but why?

>>34703565
CF is not a good idea for a plane you want to pull high g nearly every flight for 50 years, sometimes loaded and sometimes unloaded on various hardpoints. If it causes internal fatigue, theres no base level inspection that will discover it, and it could cause a catastrophic failure.

More importantly, if the aircraft recieves battle damage the damaged CF members would lose most of their structural rigitity and shatter under loading. That would be bad.

>>34704015
as he claimed himself it was done as protest againt evil Putin and all that jazz, but for me it looked like he was just a masochistic attention whore

>>34692281
>Picard

The guy who claims that future fighter should be half-sized grippen without radar?

Wow.

>>34703565
>Are defense contractors scamming everyone by using outdated materials?

It's not because it's aluminium that it's necessarily 'old'. Aluminium can be the main component in composites for example, and serve as the matrix for them. Advances in alloys are also in constant improvement, meaning that 60s alloys might have nothing to do with more modern alloys. Aluminium-Lithium alloys (at least as reliable as today) are quite recent for example.

Also, composites are always thrown around as being the future, but there are many applications they simply aren't suited to. They are extremely good for linear traction strains, but if you have shear, traction and compression strains going in all directions, they're quickly much more complicated to use. Heat can also be quite an issue.

Finally but most importantly, it's not because there's something new that shows great promises that you want to throw it in a machine that is supposed to last 20-30 years or so. In aeronautics you want materials that you thoroughly understand and control, so that nothing can go wrong. Oh and the F-35 does use a good amount of composites, but also a good amount of aluminium and titanium.

File: 1500786888520.jpg (88KB, 2048x287px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 2048x287px

>>34704099
>>34704025
>>34703598

>>34704029
we could always just go with "this nigga cray" as well

>>34704099
The thing is all these issues have been sorted out by various companies. There's multiple carbonfiber space craft, textron scorpion is largely carbon fiber. BMW and lamborghini have developed mass production CF technology that doesn't require autoclaves, lamborghinis variant was so durable they made connecting rods for pistons out of it.

>>34704587
You have to remember that the first concepts for the F-35 were being thrown around in the late '90s, where carbon fiber was still basically sci-fi magic. The DOD was not about to gamble their next mainline fighter on untested materials.

>>34703796
Nooo, it's mostly composites.

>>34704587
Yes, perfect
Compare a Lamborghini to a supersonic fighter jet

>>34704001
Ok but what is light green and purple?

File: vgstation dose.png (179KB, 1059x928px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1059x928px

>>34706077

>>34705717

Ferrari does it all the time.

>>34704587
The issue here is that you're just looking at carbon fiber as if it's the solution to all, like many companies have been trying to sell it.

In reality carbon fiber isn't even the only type of fiber, and it's still limited by simple issues, none of which are solved by your examples. You can't really get it to orientate in all directions, so you're always left with one direction where the strength is that (or close to) of the matrix. For the outer fuselage that's fine, because it's just a thin layer of composite. You can weave or simply orientate the fibers well enough with this.

Now if you have parts that have to take torsion, traction, compression strains in absolutely any direction, you're fucked if you're counting on fibers. Just look at this >>34704001 , you can see that the outer skin is composite because it won't delaminate under stress, whereas all of the actual structural parts are lithium aluminium or just aluminium.

To put it simply, fibers are good but they can't solve all problems. A more classic approach is often the only solution.

>>34706077
Light green = graphite(carbon)/epoxy, purple = "other".