I think it's been long enough that we can have a civilized discussion on this:

动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门

It recently unfucked itself.
>cheaper than eurotriangles
>similar price to inferior Super Hornet
>training wheels off, will do full 9.2g
>20:1 kill ratio in Red Flag
>best sensors and best stealth in a jet
It's good

>Why did the F-35 end up so terribly?
Slavshit.

Attached: 1542430897012.png (1600x1600, 309K)

This isn't some conspiracy, Ivan. Lockheed literally licensed the fan tech from Yakolev. That's how things work in a market economy and it's how we can have nice things. Of course I wouldn't expect you to be familiar with this process, being so poor and eastern.

Not wholly cheaper yet. In flyaway, yes. But the support infrastructure is where the real cost is.

Long term, it will be cheaper with proper support (They're tring to get it from 35k per hour to 25k per hour. For comparison the Euros are about 16k), but it isn't cheaper yet.

25k per hour is horrible for a supposed workhorse though. F-16 is like 8k and Gripen 5k.

Oh look a brainlet retard with another shitty regurgitated false statement. The F-35B's lift fan is the same width as the engine.

Attached: F-35_JSF_variants.jpg (1164x873, 190K)

The F-35B has a single engine + a lift fan with a 3 bearing swivel nozzle whilst the Yak has 3 engines, 2 dedicated to VTOL. The F-35B is not based on the Yak-141.

They didn't. Lockheed funded the Yak in exchange of data on VTOL, the X-35 was already being built on a different STOVL design while this was happening.

going to be honest, I don't know what VTOL is useful for. It already has a take off length of something crazy like 300ft, why does it need vtol?

With VTOL, you can't take off with any fuel or munitions so it's pretty much limited to landings only... Which... you'll have to land it at an airfield anyways since you're probably going to want to take off at some time later and you fucking need an airfield for that.

I can't think of anything useful for it other than for combat and that's not what it's VTOL was designed for.

Literally the only design necessary is the f35c, since if it works on a fucking carrier it's going to work everywhere else.

Unless there is other shit they aren't telling us about it's VTOL capabilities.

Except it doesn't take off vertically (VTO) you negroid. It does Short take offs (STOs) with combat loads and comes back to land vertically, hence STOVL. If you can't see how useful that is when operating from LHAs then you're a lost cause.

OP asked for a civilized discussion not memes.

Again, WHY? What's the fucking reason jackass. You just told me what it did, not the reason.

And it's
>vertical take-off and landing
Which I don't know why you had to be a stupid cunt about that. It's fucking VTOL.

WHICH AGAIN, "Short take off" isn't VTOL. What reason does it have to coming back to land vertically? Why can't it land normally? What is the benefit of landing vertically as opposed to regular ass landing?

Other than those specific carriers where there is... one of them and two "planned". That seems like a lotttt of money for just a handful of planes.

We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars for a carrier that can carry a handful of jets on it. That seems overly complicated and a waste of R&D time.

AGAIN, there are like... 2600 f35s to be built.

And those carriers can hold a max of 20 (with no other helicopters or support craft) and there is just one of them capable of supporting the f35.

...
. . .
. . .

youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY
This looks pretty vertical to me

There are 8 Wasp class ships in service that can field F35-Bs along with the America and the Jap and Britbong carriers.

So much wrong in a single post. But to make a short reply, pic related. Also imagine being able to take off and land on helicopter-carrying amphibious assault ships (read: NOT aircraft carriers). Countries such as Japan and organizations like the US Marine Corps heavily benefit from the ability to deploy jets from such ships.

Attached: STOVL.png (190x215, 67K)

>What is the benefit of landing vertically as opposed to regular ass landing?

Does not require arresting gear, does not close the runway to takeoffs, simplifying sortie management and flight operations

?
There is only 1 for the USA. For other countries, sure. You're still going to have like... a max of 2 squadrons on any of them if that.

What I don't understand is why the F-35A and C don't use the same wings? Why not use the carrier wings for the A version and have even more parts commonality? Or is the extra cost for the wings so miniscule compared to the political opportunity to construct the wings in separate locales for more representative support?

The C's wing was a navy requirement for low speed handling primarily required for aircraft carrier landings.

Another hilarity for this is that many of the nations that have selected the A or B variant tend to use the opposite refueling system, boom for B users and probe for A users.

yes it CAN, but without much feul or any weapons at all. STOVL is the more rpoper term as that's what it's doing 99.999999% of the time. Stop being a pedantic little shit because you want to look smart on the internet.

Autists pointing out little quibbles and going "UM, ACKSHUALLY..." is the biggest problem with internet discourse honestly, some sperg always comes out of the fucking woodwork and misses the entire point. Ironically they do it to look smarter, when in reality it does the exact opposite.
landing vertically means you can actually utilize a smaller landing strip. Planes need a fuck ton of space to land, so even if you just had VTO capabilities you couldn't use them unless you could also land in a small space. Also arresting wires are complex and difficult to maintain, that's the reason most Aircraft carriers don't have them.

Yeah that's what I mean, why wouldn't the Air Force requirements be met with the C's wing too? Lower wing loading is better, right? More lift is better for the Air Force's primary mission, right?

Yeah, to be honest most countries should switch to the probe system. I remember reading a study where it pretty much says the probe is usually a better choice and the boom doesn't have that much advantages. With the probe you can refuel several aircraft at a time on some aircraft as well.

Go ahead, tell me where I was wrong.

The US only has one of those type of carriers and one being built. And again, if they removed all other aircraft from them you get a max of 20 (which isn't going to happen, they kinda need the other aircraft ya know?)

Yeah I'm looking at the LHA crafts, they were all decommissioned with only one operable.

>US Marine Corps heavily benefit
As in... how? Where are those crafts that other airbases can't reach from them? Are those handful of f35bs going to be of any use what-so-ever?

The brits have... 1. The japs have... 1.
Of the 2660 f35s to be built, how many will be of that variation? Is it really, really worth it?

Is the f35A worth it?

You guys never can come up with any real scenarios, just "It would be like super awesome and a HEAVY benefit to launch 5 planes occasionally... sometimes... totally worth hundreds of billions of dollars."

To add for their benefit, landing vertically also means operating from smaller ships, like small euro carriers/amphibious warfare ships like the Spanish/Australian and Italian ones and the US Navy's amphs, which means you can spread out strike and air defense capabilities over more ships and cover more area.

>that's the reason most Aircraft carriers don't have them.
Almost all of them have them. Except one.

Now you guys are being dense on purpose.

Bigger wings means more drag, specifically when turning. Bleeds speed. Navy needs the low speed maneuverability and enjoys the low speed capability of the hornet so it’s not a big deal for them.

You are an illiterate nigger monkey animal.

Attached: platinum mad.png (1197x777, 201K)

>Yeah I'm looking at the LHA crafts, they were all decommissioned with only one operable.

New class is being built and the Wasps (LHD) carry F-35s too.

Look at the LHD you fucking idiot.

In addition, you have the British rampers, the Spanish + Australian LHDs, the Italian Harrier Carrier, anyone using Mistrals or buying Mistrals...

>You guys never can come up with any real scenarios
See: Marine air-ground task force

Attached: b4f.jpg (569x428, 25K)

what the fuck are you SMOKING. Read my post before you respond you mongoloid.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service

Attached: woj1.png (645x729, 75K)

>except one
What about:
>LHA’s (2 built out of 11 planned)
>LHD’s (8 in service)
>HMS QE
>HMS PoW
>Giuseppe Garibaldi
>Cavour
>HTMS Chakri Naruebet
You do not know what you’re talking about, stop posting.

That list counts amphibious assault ships, only actual aircraft carriers designed and operated as aircraft carriers need to apply, and of all those in the world only the Cavour, Garibaldi and Chakri Narubet are without arrestor wires and they were designed for Harrier operations.

I was looking at the LHA which were the ones brought up by the other guy. I honestly had no idea we had that many helicopter ships. I thought we had only 3-4 of them.

The terminology of "not carrier" or "helicopter carrier" or "whatever" is confusing me here a bit. If LHAs and LHDs aren't considered carriers, referring to the arrest cables.

but at the same time... they carry 6 jets on them at a time. Building billion dollar ships to host a plane that cost billions more is my entire point though.

Attached: uhh.jpg (828x344, 57K)

read

You’re a stupid nigger and you’re playing semantics because your argument was destroyed. Unironically hang yourseld. Whether or not they’re “real aircraft carriers” is irrelevant as we’re discussing capability rather than naming convention.

They carry up to 24 jets. We already have the ships and were going to build more anyway for the amphibious assault mission. They cost ~10% of what a full sized nuclear ass carrier with catapults and arresting gear does and are suitable for most of the same missions outside of high intensity peer-state conflicts. If anything a Wasp full of F-35s is a screaming deal compared to using a Nimitz for bombing goatfuckers.

You are uninformed and your argument is weak.

LHAs and LHDs aren't carriers, but could technically be operated as light carriers if their air wing was set up as such. They do not have arrestor wires as they are not designed for airplanes to land on them that way in their air operations, notice that they do not have angled flight decks and that their landing spots are in line with each other, since helicopters and Harriers and now F-35Bs can land vertically (and take off vertically *should it be necessary* for Harrier/F-35, but rarely utilized).

An aircraft carrier is an aircraft carrier. It has one job, carrying combat aircraft and be the center of a task force. Other ships that also carry aircraft, like amphibious warfare ships such as LHAs and LHDs or the Juan Carlos I carry aircraft, but they are multi-role ships whose primary role is supporting amphibious operations, including air/water-landing and inserting troops and to provide air support for them.

read

>They carry up to 24 jets
I feel like you guys split those two off on purpose at this point to confuse me for this specific reason.

They carry 20 each with that specific load out.

Something isn't adding up here mate. Sounds like a lot of bullshit to me at this point.

fpbp
check-em

Attached: F-35 flies over Davis-Monthan AFB Arizona.jpg (1781x1206, 605K)

fug off by some, posting more

Attached: USAF, Hill AFB F-35 Utah.jpg (1983x1230, 305K)

Attached: USAF, Hill AFB F-35 Utah 0.jpg (1786x1155, 103K)

As a USAF air frame mechanic, I'm glad I can say I know nothing about these fucking things other than how goddamn expensive they are.

Attached: USAF, Hill AFB F-35 Utah 1.jpg (1848x1230, 189K)

Can you fucking read

Attached: USAF, Hill AFB F-35 Utah 2.jpg (1838x1034, 172K)

Attached: RAAF, F-35A at Luke AFB, Arizona USA for pilot training.jpg (3681x1936, 1.81M)

Attached: RAAF, F-35A at Luke AFB, Arizona USA for pilot training 0.jpg (4928x3280, 1.23M)

Standard sea control wing is 20 jets and 6 seahawks. If the ship is working alongside other supporting assets with their own helos it can ditch the seahawks for four more jets.

>boom for B users
USMC (KC-130) and RAF (A330 Voyager) tankers are all drogue only
Italian KC767 is boom and drogue
Japanese Bs are just a maybe so far.

Good post the first post

based

You're comparing a new jet to ones that have been going for 40 years (F-16) and 23 years (Gripen). It's not surprising that they cost more, while the infrastructure hasn't settled yet and overhead costs are factored in.

>1542430897012.png
From the other threads:
Aint going to waste my time to write an answer to this picture, straight from the archive:
A little list of stuff that is fishy on a short glimpse in this picture alone >Yak uses dedicated vertical thrust jets not a lift fan
Obvious difference hence why they lie about it.
>work of Petr Ufimstev was deem to be useless for soviets and so it was allowed to be puplish publicly
American making stuff work russians could not.
>the picture of the YAK-43 is according to wikipedia from a site for vector graphics that is offline, great source
On top of that every vantik like you would have shitted all over me for using something from wikipedia, while almost all the text on the picture is from there.
>there is no source at all for the YAK-43 using s-ducts
Inb4 "but YAK-40 and YAK-42 had them". Yeah they had them but they are fucking civilian airliners and entire different planes

Yep.

Anyone who says otherwise drank the disinformation koolaid.

love this one

>being this butthurt to always have to post bullshit retorts.
hahaha. stay mad.
F-35's airframe is all Russian. Lockheed has receipts to prove it.

Nope. Go back to reading The Drive and War is Boring you absolute negroid autist.

>when vatniks have been debunked so often on the same thing that anons just start copying old answers vatniks still could not dismantle

Someone else's "F-35" isn't doing too hot right now.

Attached: unimportant.jpg (2000x1473, 618K)

>F-35's airframe is all Russian. Lockheed has receipts to prove it.
Wrong
codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137
>A great deal of misinformation has appeared on the Internet regarding the relationship of the Soviet Yak-41 (later Yak-141), NATO reporting name Freestyle, to the X-35 and the rest of the JSF program. The Pratt & Whitney 3BSD nozzle design predates the Russian work. In fact the 3BSD was tested with a real engine almost twenty years before the first flight of the Yak.
>Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet Navy wanted a supersonic STOVL fighter to operate from its ski jump equipped carriers. At what point the Yakovlev Design Bureau became aware of the multi-swivel nozzle design is not known, but the Soyuz engine company created its own variant of it. The Yak-41 version of the nozzle, from published pictures, appears to be a three-bearing swivel duct with a significant offset “kink.” The Yak-141 also used two RKBM RD-41 lift engines – an almost identical arrangement to the Convair Model 200 design. The aircraft was also re-labeled as a Yak-141 to imply a production version, but no order for follow-on series came from the Russian Navy.
>Yakovlev was looking for money to keep its VTOL program alive, not having received any orders for a production version of the Yak-141. Lockheed provided a small amount of funding in return for obtaining performance data and limited design data on the Yak-141. US government personnel were allowed to examine the aircraft. However, the 3BSN design was already in place on the X-35 before these visits.

>Kevin Renshaw served as the ASTOVL Chief Engineer for General Dynamics and was later the deputy to Lockheed ASTOVL Chief Engineer Rick Rezabek in 1994 when the 3BSD concept was incorporated into the X-35B design. Renshaw continues to work in the Advanced System Development branch of Skunk Works where he is currently working on flight demonstration of the DARPA ARES VTOL UAV program.

>Why did the F-35 end up so terribly?
Available for sale to foreigners. With our track record, any one could turn on us at any time. And we have to be able to knock them down with F-22s.

t. DoD

Attached: 1520801251641.jpg (398x340, 16K)

The B variant should objectively have both systems. Actually the C variant too.

list of every active problem on the F-35 at the time of IOC

Attached: f-35 problems list.png (418x6500, 2.2M)

>penal units
Penal units, seriously. Ace Combat isn't real, user.

Name one pilot that died in the f-35?

>maneuvers worse than a 747
That is reason enough to disregard your whole post.

Would three seperate planes with no common parts between them be better than the JSF program?

I would say no, dedicated platforms can perform better on the paper, but when you count everything together it is better as how it went.

But if they (officially) all have the same top speed and range, what disadvantage is there to the carrier variant wings?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
Search for "Differences between variants"
Look at the weight differences or at the Thrust/Weight ratio.

What an ugly plane...

Dude you've already been BTFO'D so hard. The United States has a shit ton of amphibious assault ships (8?), wayy more than the 1 that you thought. Also the STOVL capablity, not VTOL, allows the F35 to use much less space as on an amphibious assault ship.

Also the F35 to recap wasn't a failure even though the costs ballooned. The United States knows how to make a good aircraft and they did even though the prices soared. It can do everything that it is asked for and as shown in a separate thread, most air Force pilots love it and prefer it over other aircraft.

No. Top speed and range are useful for planning considerations, and even then, they're averages that might not represent reality.

Payload and time on station, especially for the 35B and C, is waaaayyy more important. And it's very lacking for the ridiculous price we paid for it.

>Penal units, seriously. Ace Combat isn't real, user.
not him but I wish it was so at least 1 sexy brown tomboy would be confirmed to be real

>tfw no brown planegeek mechanic gf who helped build a Starfighter with her boomer friends

Attached: avril ac7.jpg (380x478, 99K)

The f-35 might be very good
But it's fucking ugly as fuck

This.

The whole program was just a lot more expensive then it needed to be, but the plane is good.

It's the best fighter plane in the world, with the only possible exception being the F22 in strictly A2A. The procurement process was an expensive nightmare, but at the end of it we've now got an incredible machine that is not nearly as expensive as the media likes to claim

like said, it's gonna be around for decades and the infrastructure will get cheaper over time.

this is now an F-35 appreciation thread.

saw this mofos friend hover right in front of me at the same airshow

ive got 2 more pictures of it ill post

i had a video of one hovering but my old phone shit the bed, luckily i put these online

Attached: ua7r1Lk.jpg (3718x2092, 881K)

2/3

Attached: 8bSELLh.jpg (4250x2390, 966K)

3/3

Attached: VBGIjQ3.jpg (4250x2390, 963K)

>It's the best fighter plane in the world, with the only possible exception being the F22 in strictly A2A.
Are Mach 2 and Supercruise really important enough to outweigh all the advantages of the F-35 in A2A? The F-35 has better situational awareness because of it's newer sensors and it has much longer range with internal fuel only, meaning it is more stealthy.