-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 114586)
Message
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 448 unique user posts.

  • Blotter updated: 2016-01-30 Show/Hide Show All

Server Moneys Needed!

File 148248395680.jpg - (23.90KB , 516x563 , f18ng.jpg )
114586 No. 114586 ID: 6050c1
>Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns
>of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing
>to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
http://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/812061677160202240

rated 5/5
Expand all images
>> No. 114596 ID: ae1f02
You have to admire his skill in pissing off so many people
>> No. 114597 ID: cce514
File 148260443111.jpg - (86.27KB , 1000x701 , 1 vwV0ISCkn_OUV2LvlKUhKw.jpg )
114597
Guess his buddies wanted to short some Lockheed stock again.
>> No. 114602 ID: 90a126
File 148262004947.jpg - (32.15KB , 500x323 , F-35pork-500x323.jpg )
114602
On the one hand the F-35 is a (barely) flying dumpster fire of incompetence and corruption. Canceling it would finally end the money train for those companies sucking down stupid amount of money with little to show for it.

On the other hand the F-35 is finally, FINALLY maybe finally paying off, its actually flying, there are working planes being built, it is doing more then sitting on some hard drive or protecting some hanger. Canceling it now means those billions are wasted. If its almost done, and thats a big if, then we might as well finish it and get the fucking Failure-35 we paid for. Paid ALOT for I might add.

If at all possible, if Donnie was serious about stopping government bloat and out of control spending, he'd take the F-35 program and give it to some company that didn't fuck up the program in the first place if legal, don't know if there would be patent problems involved. Then go after Lockheed for fucking up so bad, cancel contracts and even bring up legal action if possible. Punish them for fucking up the F-35 program so bad, punish them for the cost overruns and massive delays. Maybe try punishing the politicians and military officers who killed the F-22 that actually worked and we were already making in favor of the "cheaper" F-35. I'm sure there was probably some corporate collusion involved, some under the table deals and promises of cushy jobs after retirement. Those fuckers need nailed.

I would say restart the F-22 program but I'm sure that would be prohibitively expensive now......if they could even do it. Apparently the tooling for the F-22 just.....disappeared, just gone. And I'm sure that has nothing at all to do with how the chinese are building knockoff F-22s.
>> No. 114608 ID: d4c8ee
File 148263356194.jpg - (129.63KB , 634x475 , article-2411779-1B9FFD01000005DC-862_634x475.jpg )
114608
>>114602
Basically the main reason the F-35 program has problems is that the Marines and Royal Navy fucked it up. All the fucking compromises exist because fucking Marine Aviation is still jerking off over Henderson Field because yeah buddy, you're going to be operating stealth fighters from dirt airstrips in Mudhutistan and it totally won't end up like Camp Bastion. (see also: all other failed marine acquisition programs chasing that unicorn of opposed beach landings) Meanwhile the British refuse to accept they're not a world power any more yet refuse to build real aircraft carriers that can operate the C-model. (They're not actually buying enough F-35Bs to fully load their carriers, parts of their air wings will be visiting flights from USMC squadrons)

For the price of the JSF program we could have gotten about 1000 F-22s at end of production prices. But the Air Force only got 187 (half of the minimum number required to fully replace the F-15) thanks to "MUH AUSTERITY" and "PEER THREATS DON'T EXIST." So now the F-35 is a compromise, what was once a stealthy replacement for everything that the F-22 wouldn't be doing is now the heaviest single-engine fighter since the F-105. (though in part this is because it carries as much internal fuel as heavy fighters like the F-14 and F-15 since it's designed to survive against double-digit SAM systems)

At least the F-35A and C are getting into a "good enough" point now, most of the fires have been put out by smothering them under piles of cash.

The tooling for the F-22 still exists in sealed and climate controlled containers at AMARG, and Lockheed is allegedly paid several million dollars a year to maintain it, but actually setting up a new production line and reacquiring lost production and QC knowledge would cost billions (last I heard RAND estimates between $17 and $30) and take years.
>> No. 114610 ID: 90a126
File 148263818923.jpg - (30.81KB , 640x512 , f-22-2.jpg )
114610
>>114608
Yeah I read about how trying to make them VTOLs made them incredibly more complicated and trying to keep parts commonality between the various planes high made shit even more complicated. The guts of a VTOL aircraft are considerably different then a standard jet, I think one person described a VTOL fighter like a Harrier or F-35 as pretty much having a helicopter in its guts.

As for the parts, from what I read the Air Force went to retrieve the tools to manufacture replacement parts and the containers supposed to contain the tools were empty. And apparently the situation has not been resolved, they cannot find the missing parts still. Whether they were mislabeled and lost next to the Arc of the Covenant and the frozen tomb of General Sherman (they are saving him in case South Carolina and Georgia even need to be throughly assraped sideways again) or somebody sold them to Israel who sold them to China as they do with pretty much every other American secret is anyones guess.

Hard to say if its even true though.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/raptor-resurrected-what-will-it-take-restart-f-22-fighter-15862

Also the parts are/were stored at the Sierra Army Depot and not the Boneyard.
>> No. 114611 ID: d4c8ee
>>114610
Whats more likely is the equipment was either never stored in the first place, or was lost after being withdrawn previously. I recall hearing that GE or Boeing got a few million dollars richer because some assembly for maintaining the A-10's gun got lost/damaged and they only had two of them.
>> No. 114612 ID: 1d521e
US Marine Aviation and RAF desire for a VTOL aircraft notwithstanding, Trump can't go after Lockheed for much, as Lockheed has the legal case to make that it was government meddling and insistence on capabilities it was not originally designed for that lead to the cost overruns and delays.

Keep in mind the original RFP pegged the program to develop a 30m dollar aircraft. It was supposed to be the Avionics capabilities of the F-22 strapped into a stealth-y (SEAD focused) Harrier/F-16 hybrid. That isn't too far out of the realm of reasonable possibility considering the cost of the F-16 program. Now look at the spec sheets and figure out how everything they added was supposed to only amount to 30m. Capabilities bloat is just as much to blame for delays and cost overruns as Lockheed's performance is. Bloat that was added over the years by the government side of the program.

This is the same reason its RCS has gone to shit. The Golf ball/tennis ball comparisons were of the clean prototype that they put on the spindle and tested from all aspects. With the IRST chin bubble and a dozen or so other necessary probe/antenna protrusions and skin bubbles making room for larger electronics packages, it's not even as stealthy as it was supposed to be. Nor does it have the capacity for upgrades everyone keeps touting. That space has already been taken up. There's not much more physical space to be adding anything more sophisticated. It's only going to be minor upgrades in code and processing power, at most.

But to cancel it now is just plain stupid. The B variant is the only actual aircraft that's a generational improvement on the one it's replacing. The A and C are sidesteps, but the B is a step up. Cancelling the program now when it's finally kind of delivering airplanes is just wasting the investment and opening NATO to a precarious capabilities gap as they scramble to find a suitable replacement. Plus the US needs them at this point, they don't have a domestic alternative and they're sure as hell not going to buy foreign. The time to cancel was 2008, that was the year when everyone in the industry was thinking "this has to be the breaking point, we can still salvage things from here". Then it didn't happen. Now I drink whenever I talk about it.
>> No. 114614 ID: b70387
>>114612
>The A and C variants are not generational improvements over the planes they are replacing.
>Cancelling now opens NATO to a precarious capabilities gap as they scramble to find a suitable replacement.
Just because of the B variant?

I like that the aircraft carrier specifically designed for the F-35B can't handle the temperature of the exhaust blasting down on the deck.
>> No. 114615 ID: d4c8ee
>>114614
Aside from the British, the F-35B will be replacing the Harrier in Italian service. Spain's navy is the other main European operator and is already going "in 10 years we'll probably buy some once ours need to be replaced."

The only other major operator of the Harrier is the Indians, and right now it's unlikely they'll purchase F-35Bs because they're currently planning on moving to flat-deck carriers. However Lockheed has apparently been allowed by congress to offer F-35 partnership in their current attempts to woo the Indians into taking over F-16 manufacturing.
>> No. 114620 ID: 9723b1
His goal is to get the government into a better bargaining position.

If you have only 1 supplier for something you say you really really need, that supplier will fuck you. Hard.

If you have multiple suppliers, and make it plain you don't need it that much, suddenly you can bargain.

>liberals in charge of understanding business
These people think giving 100% of their paycheck to government because the government promises to redistribute it evenly is a good idea.
>> No. 114626 ID: 1d521e
>>114614

Loss of the B variant would actually leave a sizeable capability gap for NATO. At least three nations + USMC would lose a significant force projection capability.

As for the alternatives to the F-35, the current market doesn't offer anything that's significantly better without also being more expensive. Super Hornet Block 3s would be 100m per aircraft. Eurofighters aswell. The Rafale would be good for any country looking to bootstrap its aviation industry (an extremely beneficial industrial program is available with Rafale deals) while also being about the same cost as an F-35.

The Gripen could be an attractive option for many NATO countries, but the issue at that point is production volume. 247 of various variants have been built over 20 years. There is something like 2,500 F-16s still in NATO service. I have a hard time believing they could match the demand if the F-35 drops out of existence.
>> No. 114627 ID: b430d1
>too big to fail

kill it. kill it with fire. kill it now or every chase-manhattan/lockheed/boeing/GM/verizon/IBM is going to have their hand in your pocket demanding free jewgolds forever. 1.5 trillion dollars is (a ridiculous amount of money)²
donald trump is the only guy rich enough to have his head wrapped around what that much money actually means. they rest of us our eyes start to bug out when someone says "thousand". for most people *illion is all the same. not donald trump, he understands.
we could equip ever single active combat personnel with a SAAB J39 for that kind of dough. Gripens for everyone. most of the reserves too.
you all voted for donald trump, trust the guy, he is way more pro than he lets on.
>> No. 114628 ID: 53d026
>>114597
What's amazing is everyone forgot Trump fucked Boeing on the Air Force One replacement just a few weeks ago yet he turns around and did this.

Hmm.
>> No. 114635 ID: b430d1
>>114628
>Trump fucked Boeing on the Air Force One replacement

painting trump as the villain and boeing as some sort of innocent victim is retarded. boeing was stealing from taxpayers, charging more than 800% their costs because they know that obama doesn't understand math or numbers and doesn't give a shit about the price when buying stuff for himself on other people's credit card. it was a blatant ripoff by boeing. when emir abu petrogold from dubai buys his private a380 he pays a few hundred million for it, but this was not a competitive bidding situation, boeing is a monopoly.
america used to have a dozen companies manufacturing jetliners competitively before the days when government interference in the marketplace ran all but the biggest, most corrupt corporation out of the business. now boeing is too big to fail and they rely on ripping off the taxpayers to stay afloat rather than producing worthwhile products at a competitive price. lockheed has no competition either so they were able to charge a comically large price for the F-35.
>> No. 114637 ID: d4c8ee
>>114626
Also the whole issue that the Rhino, Rafale and Gripen are effectively 80s designs whereas the F-35 is a modern aircraft. So far the only potential competitor is the Mitsubishi stealth program, and that's a good 10-15 years from bearing fruit.

>>114635
Except Emir Petrogold also isn't paying for that Airbus to be converted into a flying command center capable of ensuring continuity of command if the White House is evacuated, and isn't paying in advance for the aircraft's entire service life.

Airbus has also refused to assemble any VC-380s in the US and then declined to participate in the selection process.
>> No. 114638 ID: b70387
>>114635
>america used to have a dozen companies manufacturing jetliners competitively
Boeing. Douglas and then McDonnell Douglas. Lockheed tried their hand with the L-1011 TriStar. The Convair 880 and 990 happened, albeit barely.

>lockheed has no competition either so they were able to charge a comically large price for the F-35
Boeing presented the X-32 as its entrant to the Joint Strike Fighter contest. It lost and everything has gone downhill from there.
>> No. 114639 ID: d4c8ee
>>114638
The X-32 was really just a Harrier but stealth, versus the X-35's F-16/F-18 but stealth. Had a good quarter less payload and fuel capacity as I recall.

Also it couldn't actually meet the program's VTOL requirements without removing parts of the aircraft to reduce weight. Landing gear and weapons doors, part of the air intake, stuff like that. I think Boeing was even planning on redesigning the entire exhaust and tail section due to this.
>> No. 114640 ID: f11f4d
File 148281408862.jpg - (100.38KB , 900x748 , Boeing X32 hue.jpg )
114640
>> No. 114641 ID: 1d521e
>>114639

Neither did the X-35. Keep in mind the F-35B is NOT VTOL. It's STOVL. It needs 550 feet of runway to be able to take off. The X-32 was only overweight for the STOVL trials because their initial proposal was for a delta wing design. The program changed certain requirements for the C variant, so a different tail/wing was designed. The Delta wing prototypes were already built though, so Boeing entered them as technology demonstrators.


Boeing's lift system was also weaker than the X-35, but the trade-off was cost effectiveness. The X-32's Direct Lift was a proven design with tens of thousands of flight hours. If you dig into the major reasons the F-35 program was delayed, a lot of the problems originate with Lockheed's choice to go with a driveshaft driven lift fan. There were complications and challenges to overcome with the powertrain from day 1. What really messed things up was the structural weakness of their design around the system. The main bulkhead required a substantial redesign after the first few batches of "production prototypes" started showing cracks in it. Might have something to do with the massive lift fan assembly, and the corresponding hole it opens up directly behind the bulkhead.
>> No. 114642 ID: eb2308
Lockmart already said
>yeah sure we'll drop the price
Deathspiralfags pls go
>> No. 114643 ID: 649f2c
File 148283977746.jpg - (62.36KB , 670x409 , F-35.jpg )
114643
>> No. 114644 ID: 0cba3c
I'd rather see them adopt the F15 Silent Eagle.

Either way F35 is the worlds biggest boondoggle. I remember when the JSF program was going on and either Pop Sci or Pop Mech did an article on it. "The first fighter built without building a prototype." Everything was created and tested in a computer simulation and then they just started building them. What could possibly go wrong with that? :^)
>> No. 114646 ID: d4c8ee
  >>114641
While full vertical lift capabilities were not a requirement, the X-35 nonetheless showed it was capable of doing so while the X-32 did not.
>> No. 114649 ID: 9723b1
>>114639
>The X-32 was really just a Harrier but stealth, versus the X-35's F-16/F-18 but stealth
>F-16/F-18 but stealth
Try Yak-141.... you're on a military themed website, put in an effort.

>>114646
Neither showed genuine vertical lift. It took X-35 several tens of billions to metamorphose into F-35B to be able to do vertical lift. And even then artificially lightened, with no loadout and at half fuel.

The real problem was that X-32 couldn't show the supersonic requirement, but it would have been a better aircraft in all ways.
>> No. 114650 ID: 791f24
File 148288817075.jpg - (74.96KB , 600x399 , boeing-x-32b-patuxent-river-4.jpg )
114650
>>114649
last time i visited the patuxent river NAS museum they had the X-32 parked outdoors with the rest of the museum planes. it would be no problem to steal it in the middle of the night provided you had an appropriate tug and a place to stash it. those tiedown chains, about 100' of tarmac and and single chain link fence are all that separates it from civilization. the roads in that region all have super wide shoulders which are actually a side lane to accommodate amish horse buggies and prevent them interfering with automobile traffic, makes it even easier. wingspan is usually the main barrier to moving aircraft on roads, but x-32 is a narrow plane and they got really wide roads. we could stash it in a barn nearby for a few days while we study the checklists and user manual. we might be able to do the whole operation for the cost of couple month's rural property, some bolt cutters and several thousand pounds of jet fuel about $10k-$20k.
>> No. 114651 ID: 1d521e
>>114646

I'd be impressed if a production F-35B could lift off with any meaningful fuel load, the bloat from the X-35 to now has been horrendous. The prototype weighed two thirds of the current LRIP F-35Bs. This is supported by the fact that they admitted as early as 2006 that the B was 4,000 lbs overweight and started making weight reduction cuts (hint; the F-35B's weapon bay is not the same as the As and Cs, they can't fit GBU-31s up there anymore).
>> No. 114652 ID: cce514
>>114649
>Try Yak-141

You mean the failed Soviet prototype that stole it's tail assembly from a Convair design? The connection between the failed Yak-141 and the F-35 are about as real as the wheraboo claims that the Hortons invented flying wings and stealth coatings.

>video of X-35 taking of vertically
>"Neither showed genuine vertical lift."
>> No. 114653 ID: cc9f74
I don't see what mission exists for this plane that couldn't be carrier out better by unmanned drones. Not including cost, one of the key reason for putting ground support in the hands of ground controllers is to avoid friendly fire incidents.
Including cost, the Reaper program cost 00.06% for the proposed F-35 price. Not included in the F-35 expense list: pilot training, well over a million dollars per pilot. How many uneccassary officers will be required to crew 1700 aircraft? Could those sharp pilot brains be better employed somewhere else?
The reason that guided long-range munitions were invented to begin with was because it's a better solution to most military problems than putting a pilot at risk.
>> No. 114654 ID: eb2308
>>114653
>I don't see what mission exists for this plane that couldn't be carrier out better by unmanned drones.
Literally anything except long term surveillance. Drones have shit payload, input lag, and are utterly useless against aircraft.
>> No. 114655 ID: 9723b1
>>114652
It's the only other aircraft using that engine setup. Also Yakovlev and Lockheed both claim to have worked together on the design, and there are records of Lockheed purchasing the Yakovlev data in the 90s.

Put your patriot hat back on the coat rack, it's ok to cooperate with other corporations.
>> No. 114656 ID: 1d521e
>>114653

Re: Pilots....you do realize that the F-35 will be flown mostly by the pilots of the aicraft it's replacing, right? Your post makes it seem like they have to train ~2,000 more pilots. They just have to re-train existing pilots, which isn't really all that expensive.
>> No. 114657 ID: f9b63c
>Drones have shit payload, input lag, and are utterly useless against aircraft.
Whoa for a second there I thought you were listing F-35 flaws :^)

>payload bay is shit
>vr helmet has shit framerate
>approximately as lethal as an f4 phantom
;^)
>> No. 114658 ID: 649f2c
  >>114657
>approximately as lethal as an f4 phantom

F-4 keel'd fidy men, let the bodies hit the floor
>> No. 114659 ID: eb2308
>>114657
>MUH BAY
If you weren't retarded, you'd understand that the aircraft is, in fact, able to carry ordnance outside of the bay.

inb4 you think stealth works the way it does n video games.
>> No. 114660 ID: cce514
File 148291355084.png - (93.67KB , 2320x3408 , US3429509-0.png )
114660
>>114655
The three-barrel design appears in patents as far back as 1963 (US3260049 Variable vectoring nozzle for jet propulsion engines), 1967 (US3429509 Cooling scheme for a three bearing swivel nozzle) and 1970 (US3687374 Swivelable jet nozzle).

In 1960s prototypes of the nozzle were built for the Luftwaffe's VJ-101 (Rolls Royce RB153.61) and AVS (Rolls Royce XJ99, which underwent static afterburner tests) fighter programs, and Convair proposed using it for a VTOL version of a proposed light fighter in 1973 called the Model 200.

>muh horton stealth
>muh Yak-141 Forger(y)
>> No. 114661 ID: cce514
File 148291389392.png - (182.78KB , 280x384 , Rolls Royce XJ99.png )
114661
>>114660
Static testing was done in 1967 IIRC. The AVS program ended the next year.
>> No. 114662 ID: cce514
File 148291416837.png - (108.04KB , 400x164 , JPPxdUf.png )
114662
>>114659
Also you can just make the pylons and external stores stealthy.

>inb4 ivans saying stealth doesn't work (while ignoring that Russia is building stealth fighters now)
>> No. 114663 ID: f9b63c
>>114659
>the aircraft is, in fact, able to carry ordnance outside of the bay.
At which point it becomes a literal $150 million F-4.

>>114662
>you can just make the pylons and external stores stealthy
If it's that easy why even have a bay? X-35 didn't have a bay, it's why it could fly.

X-35 had to have a bay added because pylons and external stores can't be made stealthy.
>> No. 114664 ID: 1d521e
Wait, do people think that you can make external pylons stealthy? That's not how stealth works, at all. If it was possible to do it, why would the proposed "Silent" versions of the Eagle and Super Hornet both include internal bays? You can't hang a combat loadout off an F-35 and maintain anything close to its original (and not that impressive) signature. Which, ultimately, is fine. Who cares? If you're loading an F-35 to the gills, you're well beyond the stage of war where enemy air defenses are a thing.

My issue with the bays is that the B variant had to lose bay space in an effort to cut weight so it could maintain its STOVL ability. It's now less effective in the one mission profile it's supposed to be the best at; SEAD/Day1 Strikes.

Also for everyone harping about pylons, keep in mind the F-35 program started suspecting issues with external stores as early as 2005. They were not confident in the wings' ability to support the forces for an extended period of time. I believe they've sufficiently redesigned them, but there may be restrictions on their use when it comes to what and how often you can load them.
>> No. 114665 ID: cce514
File 148295344863.png - (422.02KB , 1024x733 , 163474043-Advanced-Super-Hornet-Media-Brief_page21.png )
114665
>>114663
Drag. And it's all degrees of reduction. LO stores or LO weapon pods are going to be less stealthy than a totally "naked" aircraft in the initial DEAD operations.

>>114664
>Wait, do people think that you can make external pylons stealthy?

The people who actually work with it seem to think you can. NASA did a lot of wind tunnel tests for Lockheed in the 90s using a model of the F-117 with various "lamprey" style attachments. And Boeing is already flight testing a external stores pod for the Hornet.
>> No. 114666 ID: 1d521e
>>114665

Those aren't plyons though, those are the bays I was talking about being discussed as possibilities for the Super Hornet "Block 3" aka Advanced Super Hornet, similar to how the Silent Eagle has weapon bays added to it. You aren't hanging *anything* off the wings and maintaining signature.
>> No. 114667 ID: b430d1
>>114664
> If you're loading an F-35 to the gills, you're well beyond the stage of war where enemy air defenses are a thing.

Then you're also beyond the stage where you can justify a billion dollar stealth JaBo and should instead be using A-10s, B-52 launched BLU-108, drones or whatever old shit the NG is still flying. If you have air superiority then even a P-51 ($40,000 plane in 1945, $0.5million today's money) could probably do the job . Bankrupting your country is one way to lose a war. Thats how the British lost the revolutionary war, it was a major factor in the German's first world war loss and its how we ended up having to exit Iraq with our heads held less than high. The $5 trillion cost of the Iraq war became a political issue after those expenses helped to initiate the recession which elected Obama. The level of apparent fraud, greed, waste & incompetence in the F-35 program is going to take political will away (not to mention a huge chunk of change) from further large military investment which might actually be important or valuable. What do we get in return? Nothing of significant value.
>> No. 114668 ID: cce514
File 148296439177.jpg - (75.28KB , 1399x646 , 163474043-Advanced-Super-Hornet-Media-Brief_page21.jpg )
114668
>>114666
No it's a external pod. The current Advanced Rhino proposals don't include internal stores.

>>114667
>a P-51 ($40,000 plane in 1945, $0.5million today's money) could probably do the job
>"muh dubya-dubya two" nostalgia.

Into the trash it goes
>> No. 114669 ID: b430d1
>>114668
OK, the PA-48 costs the same as the P-51, was more capable and it came off the drawing boards the same time as the F-15, so i hope it acceptably modern. You never heard of it so it's not really a value example in this discussion. Same reason I mentioned the Mustang instead of lesser known, more effective JaBos. I guess you must consider the U-2, B-52 and the KC-135 to be retarded nostalgia pieces too. What about a 1911 or M2? They not good enough for you either?
>> No. 114670 ID: 1d521e
>>114668

PYLON, not POD or BAY. That pod is a cheap way to slap internal stores onto the rhino to reduce its signature (which is also already fairly low for a legacy fighter). They wont be hanging pods like that off the wings, and if you tried to hang smaller pods off the wings, you'd still wind up with massive radar traps, defeating the point.

A centerline pod is practically the same thing as a bay. They just didn't have the space or geometry to slap conformal fuel tanks with weapon bays in them like they could with the F-15.

My point stands, you're not making external stores stealthy, centerline pods will still see an increase in the signature of the aircraft, just less than the alternative. But you know what the biggest reason they went with a pod on the ASH? Drag efficiency. Pylons on Super Hornets had to be canted outboard during development because they ran into weapons separation issues during testing. They never got funding to fix it, so all production F-18Es and Fs suffer from this issue. A pod is a cheap way to fix that while also offering "stealth" for marketing purposes. The canted pylons cause significant issues with its operational flight envelope.
>> No. 114681 ID: 791f24
The F-35 fracas reminds me a lot of the argument between Billy Mitchell & the black shoe navy, except that it lacks a Billy Mitchell character to give it more focus.

For those who aren't early aviation history nerds here is my short summary of the affair: Post WW1 Billy Mitchell (wartime brigadier, postwar col) director of the army air corps campaigned for a reduction in the navy's battleship budget in favor of more aircraft. He did so in somewhat less than perfect gentleman fashion and publicly, making use of leaks to the press and various publicity stunts to make his case and in the mid 1920s he got the boot for insubordination.

15 years later it proved that Mitchell was exactly correct about everything and battleships were no longer worth investing in. The last time the navy placed a order for a new one was 1940 & they canceled half of that order.

Why I think its similar is that most military technologies which have been employed are now obsolete. The knife seems to stick around, but most everything has come and gone. The gun will eventually be replaced by lasers and well know it just as well as we know that they won't sound as cool as they do in the movies. Its pretty obvious that an unmanned aircraft has the potential to be a much more effective weapon than the traditional man-piloted one in so many ways and even more so when you make the dollar-for-dollar comparison.
The asymmetric technology problem could also bite us in the ass if we use so much "econ points" building planes that we don't have technical capability available to counter the zerg rush of chinese drones or whatever else they come up with, but they'd need to do something because they sure can't build competitive manned planes for shit.
How much would a space-anchored mile-wide-grid costal netting with Phalanx CWIS at the intersections cost?

tl;dr how long before manned fighter aircraft are obsolete tech?
>> No. 114683 ID: d4c8ee
  >>114681
>how long before manned fighter aircraft are obsolete tech?

Probably still a few decades before they even start flight testing stuff.

http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/genetic-fuzzy-based-artificial-intelligence-for-unmanned-combat-aerialvehicle-control-in-simulated-air-combat-missions-2167-0374-1000144.pdf

>ALPHA’s ability to defeat AI-flown enemies is only one measure of success; it must also be able to defeat highly trained and experienced fighter pilots. ALPHA was assessed by Colonel (retired) Gene “Geno” Lee. As a former United States Air Force Air Battle Manager, Geno is a United States Air Force Fighter Weapon School graduate and Adversary Tactics (Aggressor) Instructor, and has controlled or flown in thousands of air-to-air intercepts as a Ground Control Intercept officer, as a Mission Commander on AWACS, and in the cockpit of multiple fighter aircraft.

>Geno noted how the first generation of red ALPHA held its own against the blue variant of ALPHA, but the resulting engagements often ended with heavy losses for both sides. Psibernetix and Geno worked together to develop tactics, techniques, and procedures to overcome red ALPHA’s payload and no-AWACS disadvantage, capitalize on blue’s mistakes, and take advantage of numeric platform superiority (when the situation presented itself). The current revised red ALPHA model presented the blue adversary with credible offensive tactics and timely defensive reactions that challenged blue’s radar sort logic, compressed their engagement timeline, and rapidly put blue into a defensive position from which they could not escape. The net result after a prolonged engagement was blue’s total defeat with no or minimal losses by red ALPHA.

>When Geno took manual control of the blue aircraft against the reds controlled by the baseline controller AFRL had previously been utilizing, he could easily defeat it. However, even after repeated attempts against the more mature version of ALPHA, not only could he not score a kill against it, he was shot out of the air by the reds every time after protracted engagements. He described ALPHA as “the most aggressive, responsive, dynamic and credible AI (he’s) seen-to-date.”
>> No. 114686 ID: 9723b1
>>114660
>The three-barrel design appears in patents as far back as 1963
And yet Yakovlev and Lockheed Martin did cooperate, and Lockheed Martin did buy Yakovlev designs.

It's fucking undeniable, both companies admitted it (even if lockmart is ashamed of it and trying to bury the history) and respected media like Janes reported on it. Almost like the data Yakovlev accumulated building a flying prototype would be useful knowledge for Lockmart.

If you knew half the tech transfers that occurred when USSR collapsed...

>>114665
>Drag. And it's all degrees of reduction. LO stores or LO weapon pods are going to be less stealthy than a totally "naked" aircraft in the initial DEAD operations.
You're forgetting that even using F-35 stealth skin, the levels of RCS reduction would make it look like a current Eurofighter on radar. You're using tons more of the expensive ass stealth skin, but getting a shitty negative return for it.

So no it doesn't really work.

But then again the Lockmart definition of "work" is "does it almost function for any price", so I guess you could apply that definition to claim it does work.
>> No. 114690 ID: cce514
File 148306692445.jpg - (756.29KB , 1920x1080 , I'd boycot russia if they exported anything b.jpg )
114690
>>114686
>here are western patents, designs and test photos from decades earlier
>DOESN'T MATTER RUSSIA INVENTED IT!

Cool clock, Mohammad, did you build it yourself?
>> No. 114692 ID: 9723b1
>>114690
>say F-35 has more in common conceptually with Yak-141 than F-18 or F-15
>RUSSIA INVENTED IT!
If you can't link to the post where I say Russia invented it, you're a faggot.
>> No. 114693 ID: 1d4593
>>114690
stealing tech is good.
some large organization that you don't pay taxes to busts it's ass for 15 years to achieve perfection and then you just take their shit for free. the nerds puffing their chests out about how much effort they output are the chumps. louis slotin may have given his life to invent the atom bomb, that chump never benefitted from it for a second.
>> No. 114710 ID: eb2308
>>114663
>At which point it becomes a literal $150 million F-4.
Stealth doesn't work the way it does in you video games.
>> No. 114714 ID: c64f28
>>114710
I don't see how a program that costs $1.5 trillion can delivers 1700 planes at $150 million per. You're making baseless claims that you know "how stealth works" and nobody else does, but you can't even do simple arithmetic.
laughable
>> No. 114724 ID: 53d026
>>114714
To be fair the unit cost of a F-22 is $150 million
>> No. 114725 ID: 2563fa
>>114724
The F-35 was originally envisioned as a significantly cheaper jet, compared to the F-22. Further production of the F-22 has since been cancelled, due to the skyrocketing costs of the F-35 program. lawlz
>> No. 114726 ID: eb2308
>>114714
No, i'm actually making no claims at all, beyond stating that you don't understand the subject.

Given that you can't understand the difference between somebody claiming knowledge, and somebody calling you ignorant, I suspect that I am correct.
>> No. 114728 ID: d4c8ee
>>114725
F-22 production was cut and then cancelled due to Republican unwillingness to raise taxes to pay for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a belief that we'd only ever be bombing semi-illiterate goat herders who live in mud huts and that China wouldn't start building fake islands in the SCS and Russia wouldn't return to it's imperialist policies of the cold war.

So as I said before, "MUH AUSTERITY."
>> No. 114732 ID: 9723b1
>>114714
Just ignore the pancake nazi, he thinks CAS is possible from high altitude.
>> No. 114734 ID: 07f6dc
File 148341007617.jpg - (198.45KB , 1024x780 , Tupolev Tu-22M.jpg )
114734
>>114732
>he thinks CAS is possible from high altitude

It most certainly is.
>> No. 114737 ID: 9723b1
>>114734
Yeah if you're willing to accept, what 67% friendly fire and noncom casualties?
>> No. 114741 ID: 07f6dc
File syria_russian_pilot_films_US_drone.webm - (1.62MB , syria russian pilot films US drone.webm )
114741
>>114737
This isn't the 80s any more.
>> No. 114744 ID: 19102b
>>114602
That's one of the big problems with modern procurement. The US needs more open contracts so when you have a fuck up like lockmart their competitors can step in and take up some of the slack/ fix their mistakes and even aid in production.

As it stands with Trumps nod to Boeing's Hornet - part because mind you he wants to stop Boeing from opening factories for airliners in China, there apparently is a low RCS experimental Advanced Super Hornet.

I just hope he (and Mattis) realize the folly of one aircraft for all missions
>> No. 114745 ID: 19102b
>>114610
I still don't understand why the DOD felt the need to complicate shit with VTOL. The USMC should have gotten a gen 4.5 non stealth supersonic aircraft with Yakolev style tilt jet from someone other than lockmart - something with actual range and payload and improved performance over Harriershit, because any way you cut it, just like the F/A-18, the corps will get the non-VTOL naval variant of the F-35C
>> No. 114746 ID: 19102b
>>114612
We don't have a suitable domestic alternative because DOD gave responsibility for the entire projected 5th gen fleet of combat aircraft to lockmart.
General Dynamics got out of the fighter game and sold off the F-16 to Lockmart
BAe USA only gets missile and land contracts
Boeing bought up McDonnell Douglass and it's only alternatives are low RCS variants of the F-15 and Super Hornet.

Basically:
A) Don't go for one fighter fits all, don't give one company an entire generational responsibility
B) Don't freaking allow bigger companies to swallow up smaller ones
C) Fix the contract system to a more open nature, the rest of the aerospace industry should be picking up Lockmarts slack
>> No. 114747 ID: 9723b1
>>114741
It doesn't matter what year it is, a strategic bomber can't provide close air support.
>> No. 114749 ID: d4c8ee
Don't worry guys, the Libertarian venture capitalists have figured out how to fix all the problems with the F-35: we just cancel all testing and evaluation, because problems don't exist if you don't find them!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/12/20/how-trump-can-fix-the-f-35-fighter-program-without-hurting-american-
warfighters-workers-or-allies/#2279e50161dc

>However, President-elect Trump is right in saying the program doesn't need to cost as much as it does. Even if you remove the 50 years of inflation "guess-timates" in the program's trillion-dollar price-tag, it is clear that a lot of the money spent on the F-35 fighter is not related to meeting the operational needs of three different military services.

>For instance, 20-30% of the price for each fighter results from having to comply with government regulations that don't exist in the commercial world. If Boeing's jetliner unit had to follow the thousands of regulations military contractors do in developing products, it would soon be out of business. Its prices would be too high.

>It's not as though Lockheed benefits from all the unnecessary testing. Its profit margin on the Pentagon's biggest program is in the 7-8% range, while start-ups in Silicon Valley are generating 40% or 50% margins on smart-phone apps. Lockheed execs would love to see more of the program's budget go to building planes rather than keeping bureaucrats employed.

>President Trump should direct his defense team to eliminate regulations that don't add value to programs like F-35. It's unsettling to hear the President-elect say a crucial military program is "out of control," but when it comes to the way the Pentagon goes about managing such programs, you can make a case Trump is right.
>> No. 114751 ID: 07f6dc
File 148347124088.png - (733.67KB , 862x629 , bone.png )
114751
>>114747
yes it can and it will be better at it than an A-10. Precision-guided munitions/laser guided bombs/CBU-105 Sensor Fuzed Weapons are a thing.
>> No. 114752 ID: 1519ac
>>114749
>It's not as though Lockheed benefits from all the unnecessary testing. Its profit margin on the Pentagon's biggest program is in the 7-8% range, while start-ups in Silicon Valley are generating 40% or 50% margins on smart-phone apps.

TIL building planes and coding apps is the same thing. What a stupid comparison.
>> No. 114753 ID: 90a126
File 148347415826.jpg - (126.55KB , 871x600 , dems think they are jews.jpg )
114753
>>114749
My god there is so much wrong with this I don't even know.

Government regulations especially on military equipment is higher then commercially for a reason. Military equipment goes through wear and tear that most civilian equipment would never go through. Comparing the needs of a combat aircraft to a jetliner is fucking stupid. One flies fat fucks across the country at a leisurely place, never ever being pushed to the limit. The other flies in combat, gets shot at, it put to and forced to exceed its limits. We want the limits to be fucking high because of that.

To put an example, the combat boot. The combat boot is extremely reliable, extremely durable, will last years even with tough abuse. You can still find military boots from the 70s and 80s and earlier floating around the internet and thrift stores, boots that were used and used hard. Compare that to most any civilian shoe or boot. They fall apart in months, sometimes sooner depending on the level of activity. They are not built to last, are not built to high tolerances. Equip our troops with boots made to commercial specs and our military would be going through boots like Taylor Swift through men.

Testing is so goddamn necessary. Testing means we can push shit to the limit, walk along the razors edge, in the comfort of labs and closely monitored field tests rather then sticking the shit into the field and figuring out what breaks the hard way, the way that gets people injured or killed.

What isn't necessary or "crucial" is this fucking program. This program is out of control but not because of testing, that is a fucking relatively recent thing.

I'm glad this was posted. Anytime Libertarianism starts looking somewhat appealing shit like this comes along and reminds me how batshit stupid too many libertarians are.
>> No. 114759 ID: 791f24
>>114752
I'd rather have the $120billion that Lockheed is generating from their "only" 7-8% guaranteed profits than the possibility of getting 50% back on the $20,000 cost of making an app. Kelly Johnson's skunkworks sure have changed since the old man moved on, they really stink now.
>> No. 114761 ID: 9723b1
File 148349848214.jpg - (186.44KB , 650x434 , desktop-1428939663.jpg )
114761
>>114751
Alright here's an aerial photo. There are 10 of your guys being shot at by about 50 hajis. Your guys don't know where exactly where they are or where the fire is coming from.

Where do you guide your precision guided bombs.

>>114749
>7-8% range
>profit
That's after giving themselves massive salaries and reinvesting in expanding their business.

Profits for corps are low because of corporate profit tax.
>> No. 114762 ID: eb2308
>>114761
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2q65qOl1tM

I don't know, but the asshole flying a jet with modern avionics probably does.
>> No. 114763 ID: eb2308
>>114732
...you mean the thing that's been done successfully for the entirety of the war in Afghanistan?

Yes, I do in fact think things that can be verified to happen on a regular basis are possible.
>> No. 114764 ID: 028b36
>>114586
> 68 posts and 16 images omitted. Click Reply to view.

Seriously guys? No point out SoL is posting from prison with his butt phone?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-man-pleads-guilty-to-strangling-dismembering-woman/
>> No. 114766 ID: 9723b1
File 148356091420.jpg - (225.84KB , 650x434 , 148349848214.jpg )
114766
>>114762
>lockmart advertisement
EOTS is just an infrared sensor, it doesn't see through walls or trees, or tell you which white blob is friendly or enemy.

Infrared systems are great for strike bombing previously known and located targets far away from your own guys.

Not so great at CAS.

>>114763
Except every time you bring this up I post proof that the high altitude approach had several times the friendly casualty rate. I'm going to keep doing it too.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/at-what-point-does-the-usafs-war-against-the-a-10-becom-1685239179
>Platform ..... Civilian Casualties per 100 Kinetic Sorties
>AC-130 .......... 0.7
>A-10 .......... 1.4
>F-15E ......... 1.6
>F-16 ......... 2.1
>F-18 ......... 2.2
>B-1 .......... 6.6
>AV-8 .......... 8.4

The only fast jet with similar casualty rates to A-10 was F-15E, which also flew very low and eyeballed targets.
The only aircraft with superior casualty rates to A-10 was the spooky, which flies even slower.
>> No. 114774 ID: f11f4d
>>114766
>friendly casualty rate
>Civilian Casualties
laughing_generals.avi

Also, are you factoring in the types of circumstances that each platform is likely to be used in? Because until you do, you're no better off suggesting that eating ice cream prevents the flu.
I know what you're saying, but you're saying it poorly.
>> No. 114777 ID: 9723b1
>>114774
If you think civilians are the only ones dying from misses by 1000lb bombs, I think you should be the next guinea pig on the ground calling in an airstrike by a B-1.

See how your family feels when you become a statistic some Air Force nerd needs to hide.

>are you factoring in the types of circumstances that each platform is likely to be used in
No because I figure any such "circumstance" is probably going to skew things even more in A-10s favor, and I don't feel the need to brutally rape the pancake nazi even more. Gentle rapings are best for fixing misinformation and ignorance.

Like in that article said, if you account for passes/runs, the A-10 is like 13 times better. On top of that I bet half the strikes by the high altitude aircraft were strikes on fixed, preplanned targets. Like areas enemy mortar fire was coming from for three fucking days while troops stood there dying and waiting for some bomber to get ready and fly there from America *cough*operation*cough*anaconda*cough*.
>> No. 114821 ID: 1d521e
The fact of the matter is, in the last 15 years the A-10 has been involved in four friendly fire incidents to the B1's single incident. The way these different systems are employed, and the differences in their loadout can easily explain the civilian casualty rate. Trying to force the assumption that friendly fire rates occur at the same rates as civilian casualties is absurd.
>> No. 114827 ID: 9723b1
>>114821
>in the last 15 years
Top Heh, nice of you to enjoy the text surrounding that cooked link, which explains how it was cooked.
>For one, the numbers were cooked by time frame. The chart comparing civilian casualties starts in 2010, conveniently excluding the 2009 Granai Massacre in which a B-1 killed between 26 and 147 civilians and wounded many more. The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission estimated 97 civilians killed, which the Department of Defense has not disputed. Including 2009 would have made the B-1 bomber the worst killer in theater by far.
>For the fratricide data, on the other hand, the Air Force incongruously extended the time-frame back to 2001. If they had used the same time-frame, the B-1 bomber's killing of five American troops in 2014 would have made it top the list for fratricide.
>Second, the Air Force's data doctoring went so far as to exclude all wounded U.S. troops, all killed or wounded allied troops, and all wounded civilians over the same time period. Including these statistics would have collapsed their case against the A-10. If the Air Force included all friendly killed and wounded, three aircraft would have caused substantially greater total fratricide losses than the A-10. This was also an obvious conclusion from the released data sheets, but not mentioned in the press reports.
>Finally and most importantly, to make sure no one could compare aircraft using the crucially important friendly casualty rate per 100 sorties, the Air Force withheld as classified the number of firing sorties each plane flew during the fratricide data period (2001 to 2014)—notably the same data they declassified for their civilian casualty chart from 2010 to 2014.
For the sake of argument ignore all that.

In total B-1 killed five Americans.

How many did A-10 hit?
They claim 10, but... read the fine print: Casualties incurred in one incident involving AH-64 and the A-10 are counted in both weapon system types.
In this incident in 1991 only the AH-64 fired, killing 2 soldiers and wounding six. Bringing A-10 friendly kills to 8.
The A-10 had two and a half times more sorties. Adjusting A-10 fratricide by a factor of 2.5 to 3.2 friendlies per sortie.
The A-10 fired during twice as many sorties. Adjust by a factor of two to 1.6 friendlies per firing sortie.
The A-10 makes 2-3 times more firing runs per sortie. Adjust A-10 fratricide by a factor of two again to 0.8.

We're down to 5 versus 0.8.

Even the numbers that are designed to shit on the A-10 show it's better in every way.
>> No. 114828 ID: 1d521e
>>114827

>> In the Battle of Nasiriyah, an American force of Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs) and infantry under intense enemy fire were misidentified as an Iraqi armored column by two U.S. Air Force A-10s who carried out bombing and strafing runs on them. 17 were wounded as a result.

>> 190th Fighter Squadron/Blues and Royals friendly fire incident – 28 March 2003. A pair of American A-10s from the 190th attacked four British armoured reconnaissance vehicles of the Blues and Royals, killing L/CoH. Matty Hull and injuring five others.

>>On 6 April 2006, a British convoy in Afghanistan wounded 13 Afghan police officers and killed seven, after calling in a US airstrike on what they thought was a Taliban attack.[120]

(though I'll give you the A-10s were just doing what the FAC asked them to)

>>Operation Medusa (2006): 1 – Two U.S. A-10 Thunderbolts accidentally strafed NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, killing Canadian Private Mark Anthony Graham.

(and wounding 30 others)

In that same time period was 1 B1 incident;

>>Five United States Special forces operatives, an Afghan Army counterpart, and an interpreter were killed by friendly fire in Southern Zabul Province on June 9, 2014. Whilst on patrol, and coming under heavy Taliban fire, an air-strike was called in and a B-1 Lancer bomber misdirected its payload killing the seven military personnel amongst others

Which was largely a result of the JTAC not being on top of things.

I didn't want to open it back to 91 because the B1 hasn't been doing CAS that long, but if you want to bring that up....

>>During the Battle of Khafji, 11 American Marines were killed in two major incidents when their light armored vehicles (LAV's) were hit by missiles fired by a USAF A-10.

>>An American A-10 during Operation Desert Storm attacked British Warrior MICVs, resulting in nine British dead and numerous casualties.

(numerous = 11 wounded)

So from an operational lifetime standpoint, the A-10's bodycount stands at 28 American Casualties, 26 British Casualties, and 31 Canadian Casualties. If you considered ANA/ANP as "blue" forces, that would be an additional 20.

By contrast, the B1-B is at 5 American Casualties and 2 Afghani Casualties.

Using your own provided "math", adjusting by a factor of 6.5 (which is horribly bogus but I don't have the time to go into how screwed your math is, as skewed as you have it in the A-10's favour, that's still *13* casualties, to the B1's 7.

So really, talk to me about "cooking the books". If you try and argue that deaths and casualties are different, I'm done, there's just no point.
>> No. 114830 ID: 9315da
>>114596
>>114597

These.

Also it's just too late to do anything , really , about the F35. The military is so deep into the program the only practical choice now is forward.
>> No. 114831 ID: 90a126
File 148379972842.jpg - (37.55KB , 450x357 , beer-goggles.jpg )
114831
>>114830
>The military is so deep into the program the only practical choice now is forward.

Its funny, that was pretty much the same advice a friend gave me if I ever found myself wasted and balls deep in some modern day neanderthal woman, you're already so deep you might as well keep going.

I don't think that was good idea for that and I certainly don't think its a good idea for us to keep getting fucked by the F-35 just because its balls deep in our wallets.
>> No. 114832 ID: 632b3e
>>114830

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/03/25/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/
>> No. 114834 ID: 9723b1
>>114828
>British
Foreign casualties aren't included in the files released by the air force.

This is yet another way the totals were cooked.
>> No. 114836 ID: 0d82ce
>>114828
>I didn't want to open it back to 91 because the B1 hasn't been doing CAS that long, but if you want to bring that up....
Oh wow you aren't even trying to hide it.

First of all, the B-1 has never flown the full requirements of a CAS mission, which include identifying the enemy on their own, providing fire support on their own, and keeping it up persistently. They have always worked through FACs and always struck stationary targets with JDAM.

Second of all, the official time when it even starts doing """"CAS"""" is in 2008. That brings the A-10 casualty (wounded and not) totals to 2.3 and the B-1 to 7.

We have no info on how many were wounded in that same incident by the B-1, but we do know that it happened due to the inherent limitations of the aircraft, and was avoidable.
>> No. 114841 ID: 1d521e
  >>114836

>>We have no info on how many were wounded in that same incident by the B-1

0. There is no info on how many were wounded because there were none. They dropped 2 bombs and killed 6 guys who were on a ridge line after having just cleared out a village. It's not like they dropped bombs on the middle of a drill formation and they're trying to cover up the number of wounded.

>> incident by the B-1, but we do know that it happened due to the inherent limitations of the aircraft, and was avoidable.

So that's just factually incorrect. The JTAC directed them at the wrong hill, because both he and his CO couldn't keep track of things, and a fairly glaring limitation of the Sniper pod which couldn't see IR strobes (which is a gross oversight of the Sniper system, it means this situation could occur with ANY CAS aircraft which uses a Sniper pod - that includes the A-10).

The limitation lies with the Sniper pod and not with the B-1B as a whole. A pilot has to trust his controllers, and can't spend a bunch of time second guessing them. 99/100 they're doing their job properly, but when they're wrong, it's usually terrible.

>>The Air Force JTAC, who mistakenly told the air crew the Americans were a safe distance from the target when they were in fact the target, had a spotty career. He had been demoted from staff sergeant to senior airman for misconduct. He was kicked out of a special unit because he twice called in close air support directly over friendly positions. The Times learned that he showed a lack of basic air controller know-how when he was interviewed by accident investigators.

So the JTAC in this situation was habitually shitty at his job.

>> First of all, the B-1 has never flown the full requirements of a CAS mission, which include a list of bullshit I just made up

Here's what the US Military considers to be "CAS". Your irrelevant goalposts can shift themselves off the field entirely.

>> close air support (CAS) is defined as air action by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets, that are in close proximity to friendly forces, and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces.

>>Close air support requires excellent coordination with ground forces. In advanced modern militaries, this coordination is typically handled by specialists such as Joint Fires Observers (JFO)s, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC)s, and Forward Air Controllers (FAC)s.

If your excuse is that an A-10 could have positively identified the forces on the hill as being American...well, there's plenty of incidents listed here that show that the A-10 is just as capable of running on friendlies (including the video).

There are reasons to defend the A-10. The ones you've chosen to harp on about are pretty much the weakest string of defenses one could conceive.

>>114834
>>Foreign casualties aren't included in the files released by the air force.

They didn't have to be? They were released as they happened by other sources. Which is why I could find a list of them.

...in fact, by NOT including British and Canadian casualty figures caused by A-10s, that "cooked the books" in favour of the A-10. As I pointed out.
>> No. 114846 ID: 9723b1
>>114841
>As I pointed out.
As you failed to point out, he >>114836 disproved it.

>2.3 and the B-1 to 7.
It still kills five more people, even with your fiddling.
>> No. 114847 ID: 1d521e
I see, I'm done, if you're just going to blatantly ignore facts, there's no point in trying to discuss this.
>> No. 114849 ID: 9723b1
>>114847
He pointed out you added 7 extra years of CAS work to A-10, but not to B-1.

Do you have an excuse for why you would perpetrate such a blatant attempt at manipulation or not?
>> No. 114854 ID: 1d521e
>>114849

I'm not fiddling with shit, nor am I manipulating shit. The goal posts keep getting moved because the original ones were easily dealt with. He moved goal posts first, I included the incidents he didn't when he decided to bring up 1991. Then he tries to move them back. All while using made up contexts to support his math/claims.

All I did was offer up their respective histories with regards to friendly fire incidents. His bullshit idea that CAS can't be provided by high altitude assets because they're more likely to cause friendly fire incidents is demonstrably false.

The fact of the matter is, the A-10 has killed or wounded A LOT of blue force compared to other aircraft (like, say, the F-16, F-15, and F-18, all of which have better track records over any time period he chooses to talk about next). And they've done it in situations he's saying should lead to less casualties over high altitude CAS.

I don't need to manipulate shit, because I'm not trying to fabricate support for a bullshit idea.
>> No. 114855 ID: 90a126
>>114854
To be fair, the A-10 performs a different role the those other aircraft. Its mission is to the lay the hurt danger close, the F series aircraft are more likely to be laying the hurt behind enemy lines well away from friendlies. Even operating in support of ground forces most fighter planes operate high and wide from friendly, won't be near to the deck blasting dudes practically on top of their guys. Thats pretty much all the A-10 does though, it is going to fight close to friendly forces and have far more chances of accidentally engaging friendlies then fighter aircraft. Comparing them seems very apples and oranges.

It would be like saying a NASCAR hits fewer pedestrians then a normal car. Of course it does but not because the NASCAR is safer or anything but because it is in a role where its rare for it to get squishable people in its path.

Any aircraft performing such close air support is probably going to have a high friendly fire rate, just the nature of the mission that unfortunately sometimes friendlies get hit.
>> No. 114856 ID: 9723b1
>>114854
>The fact of the matter is, the A-10 has killed or wounded A LOT of blue force compared to other aircraft
But that's not true, why do you keep repeating it?

If you break it down properly the A-10 is hurting around 5 times less friendlies, and up to 10 times less civilians.
>> No. 114861 ID: 1d521e
>>114856

Except it isn't hurting less than the aircraft I've mentioned. It's raw numbers are the highest, and only by manipulation can it said to be 5 times less deadly to friendly forces than the B-1 (remember, that's where most of this debate has been centered around). If you compare it to the F-16, which has been flying CAS just as long as the A-10 and is the actual CAS workhorse (over 30% of CAS sorties were flown by F-16s in Afghanistan, much more than the A-10). It has 12 friendly casualties to its name stemming from one incident at the start of that deployment where an F-16 mistook a backfiring generator as AA fire and rolled in despite orders not to.

The way in which these aircraft are employed impacts these numbers greatly, but if anything they should be proof that the A-10 is not the magical CAS bird that this guy is trying to make it out to be.

Like I said, there are reasons to defend the A-10 and possibly keep it around, but he's chosen the weakest argument.
>> No. 114936 ID: c6ab04
  F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths - Episode 1
>> No. 114937 ID: c6ab04
  F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths - Episode 2
>> No. 114938 ID: c6ab04
  F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths - Episode 3
>> No. 114939 ID: c6ab04
  F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths - Episode 4
>> No. 114940 ID: c6ab04
  F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths - The Radar Equation [v1.1]
>> No. 114943 ID: 649f2c
  thanks for linking us to objective information and not paid advertisement from lockheed employees posing as fanbois on reddit.
>> No. 114945 ID: d4c8ee
Best "adur F-35 is bad" thing I've seen in a while was some Kotaku writer whining about how the A model uses boom refueling while the B and C have a probe and drogue setup.

It's up there with that British writer going "The Royal Navy spent over a hundred million pounds on a 4.5 inch long gun!"
>> No. 114949 ID: b70387
>>114945
Honestly, why would the different models use different aerial refueling setups like that?
>> No. 114953 ID: dd244d
File 14842330021.gif - (59.46KB , 350x266 , poster-1340301986_reaction_face.gif )
114953
>>114936
>Busting Myths
Should be called "excuses".

>F-35 is limited to low speed BUT since most aircraft carry external stores...
It's nonsense, F-35 has to carry external stores ON TOP OF its horrific fuselage architecture just to have enough weapons for a mission. Half the time people compare other fighters to it, Lockmart themselves will trot out the ole "but we got pylons toooooo".

This was an aircraft that was promised to supercruise with a full weapon loadout and cost $50 million, and instead it flies subsonic with a full weapons loadout and costs $150 million. Mon visage quand moronic shills think facts like this will slip by a userbase of a militaria themed vebsite.

>>114949
Because you're moving and you've got to pack a 6lb cat, 8lb dog, and 10lb pig but all you bought are 5lb bags.

Same reason C and B don't even have guns, there's just noplace to put them.
>> No. 114960 ID: 1e3438
>>114953
why do people keep on saying they're a $150million plane?
its a $1.5trillon for 1700 planes. can't you do basic math? the planes cost $882million each.
>> No. 114961 ID: d4c8ee
File 148424935419.jpg - (140.56KB , 358x519 , USAF_B-52_refueling_with_a_KC-135.jpg )
114961
>>114949
The Air Force uses boom refueling because it can provide a much higher flow rate for large aircraft, and the pilot of the aircraft being refueled basically just has to fly up behind the tanker and wait for the boom operator to hook up.

The Navy, and pretty much everybody else in the world, uses probe and drogue refueling because despite the fact that the pilot now has to spear a drogue whipping around behind a aircraft (and that's without bad weather or low visibility), it's a lot simpler and lighter, and one aircraft can refuel multiple aircraft at once. Also you can do stuff like buddy tanking if you don't or can't operate larger aircraft, and refueling helicopters.

The KC-135 can be fitted with a drogue adapter on the boom, and can be fitted with wing-mounted adapters, while the newer KC-10 has a drogue mounted centrally in addition to the boom. The new KC-46 will have all three as standard IIRC.
>> No. 114963 ID: 9723b1
>>114949
Well you see it's two to three times faster to refuel by pipe than by hose.

So obviously because the C variant has the highest fuel store and operational need (CAP) for fuel, and because the B variant has the smallest store and has to be refueled most often, Lockheed martin has decided to make it so that those two variants that most rely on refueling can only be refueled by the slowest, most dangerous, and most unreliable possible system available.
>> No. 114965 ID: d4c8ee
File 148425935513.jpg - (1.05MB , 2991x1953 , KA-6_F-14_DN-ST-87-10386.jpg )
114965
>>114963
>idiot has idiot opinions

This guy can't post now.
Personal insult.
>> No. 114968 ID: 791f24
>>114961
They seem to be delivering the goods at quite a steep bank angle.
B-52 formation aerobatic team when?
>> No. 114969 ID: d4c8ee
  >>114968
Never.
http://sbfpd.org/uploads/3/0/9/6/3096011/darker_shades_of_blue.pdf

>"You've killed us you asshole." -Lt. Col McGeehan
>> No. 114970 ID: 9dcda2
  >>114969
Interesting read.

Cached HTML version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qN5quCOYEv4J:sbfpd.org/uploads/3/0/9/6/3096011/darker_shades_of_blue.pdf+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

On the video, FF to 1:10 for 8 jet engines coming up to power.
>> No. 114975 ID: 649f2c
File 14844607756.jpg - (17.72KB , 340x282 , post-51173-0-53953200-1290625728_thumb.jpg )
114975
I think what d4c8ee was trying to say in >>114965 is that the previous poster was mistaken in their assessment and drogue & probe refueling was in fact the correct logical choice because the tankers available from carrier decks are limited, somewhat antiquated and are equipped with drogue & probe refueling gear & they're not scheduled to be replaced in the foreseeable future.
all of that what what I read into the picture.

If Trump wants to dump a bunch of money into new makes of the F-18, then maybe they can develop a boom refueling system for the new F-18s, but that would be way off in the future & probably won't happen. A biplane version for heavy lift, & extra tankage?
>> No. 114977 ID: b70387
>>114975
I doubt 9723b1 would have picked up on all that. I certainly didn't. In which case, the post is less than constructive.

Thank you for your reasoned discourse.
>> No. 115080 ID: d4c8ee
>>114975
No I was calling him a idiot for saying Lockheed is responsible for the Air Force and Navy adopting different refueling systems back in the 60s.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason