Has your opinion changed on the F-35?

The machines isnt a real job thats for the machines. Go ride the desk like a real human bean.

Nope. It's always been a smashing success at its intended mission. That mission being to transfer huge amounts of wealth from beleaguered American taxpayers to politically-connected defense contractors. As a piece of combat equipment, it's a total dog, but as a money-laundering scheme, it's fucking brilliant.
>The F-104 successor repeats the life of the F-104.
FTFY

They sure do pay a lot for not being a real job. Shit's great.

The entire defense industry is welfare. War is socialism.

Is it
Butthurt Yurop pasta, or starving Ivan pasta?

No. I didn't buy into "it's a total fraud" bullshit, but same goes for the other extreme of the argument.
It's capable but it's nothing special and it cost A LOT. Entire US military procurement system is bloated as fuck and inefficient. F-35 just made the headlines, that's all.

My opinion hasn't changed. I never liked the F-35, but that was for personal and subjective reasons and irrelevant to its actual capabilities, stuff like how the JSF program was handled and it having the aesthetic values of dog poop for example.
It's a completely different story as to its capabilities, but fuck you this was only a long-winded way for me to say the F-35 looks like ass and you got le ebic baited. I crave (you)s like I crave cocks.

Attached: here in my garage with my new tomcat.jpg (1200x838, 425K)

It can't be that shit if multiple militaries have trialled it and decided to purchase it.

>what is diplomatic pressure
I remember through the haze that time when Norwegians trialled some shit and decided not to buy American and Americans cockslapped them.

Well I do suppose the brits kind of had no choice considering the naval airpower situation.

Meant for

>It can't be that shit if multiple militaries have trialled it and decided to purchase it.
Oh yes it can. Pic related.

Attached: F1045.jpg (800x528, 71K)

The F-104 was a fine aircraft, it's bad reputation comes from Leaf/Kraut retards

>muh real job
Let me guess, you’re also a Wall Street yuppie earning 6 figures.

>Well I do suppose the brits kind of had no choice considering the naval airpower situation.
The F-35 was their choice. They were the first partner nation, signing on around 1998 with the USMC for a harrier replacement jet.

Its what happens when you try to use a interceptor as a multi-role aircraft.

>Don't train your pilots properly
>Use an interceptor for ground attack
>they crash
>"HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN THIS IS LOCKHEEDS FAULT"
Give proof that Germany was coerced into buying them.

touchscreens are gross.

That these threads are only ever full of niggers screaming "why the fuck do stuff cost money!?" Is an indication that it's for the most part quieted all naysayers

No. Still an ugly plane.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
The reason they used it as an air to ground platform is because they needed one, but they got the wrong plane for it.
The plane in itself is fine, but as usual, Lockheed as great engineers but shit managment, just like with the F-35.

Have you ever read IT books regarding F-104s?
Now I really don't remember most of its problems but just to list a few of them:
>it could potentially shut its engine off during take off and crash
Happened on different operators
>super stall due wrong AOA cause aerodynamics worked in a way and not in the other
You could still potentially superstall it on AMI F-104S/ASA even though there were alert systems, yet pilots from time to time disabled or ignored them and they fucking crashed
>Could potentially get MLG stuck as the window to retract it was tight
Meh
>Gun purge gasses could shut your fucking engine off if ingested
I think around Capo Frasca Range there are at least 3 or more F-104G remnants
>Aircraft had different trim settings which nobody but test pilots were well aware of
Basically if you were flying with a clean aircraft you could just basically spiral to your death as soon you abruptly banked left or right
If drop tanks were on tips aircraft was more stable but you had to keep in mind fuel leverage during maneuvers
If four drop tanks were installed you were basically sitting on a train
If Sidewinders were installed on the tips with a clean wing then you had to wrestle with vibrations
If Sidewinders were installed on its belly you were even more G restricted due whatever reasons related to lateral Gs, the same thing that happened on some Mig-25 pilots whom thought they were all cool and dandy, banked at high speed and got its wing pylons thorn off

Why would you come here to post something so retarded?

Future carrier air wing from Tailhook

Attached: 17f9fdb051bd365a7661edd2316155e0.jpg (1664x1242, 186K)

I fail to find any kind of book which explains this:
During the 80s when the F-16 was growing and McDonnell Douglas was getting butthurt why in the earth the F-20 was
>AGM-65 compatible
>GBU ready
>Aim-7 compatible
>whatever compatible
Yet the F-16 went to the Desert Storm with just dumb and cluster bombs?

It is still and always will be the F:35 (Nato reporting name: Boondoggle) to me, the very same thing big Ike warned the American people about.
This for-profit corporate piece of shit will need to have wars invented for it to justify its cost, does this actually make sense? The worst part is the sheer arrogance from everyone involved in that it costs so much WE CANT STOP and IT HAS TO BE THE BEST BECAUSE IT COSTS THE MOST. 1984 tier cognitive dissonance

>Nato reporting name: Boondoggle
Cringe and Spreypilled

How is not an absolute boondoggle with no purpose? China and Russia are on track to field rivals to it in 2050, 12 aircraft in Russia's case and 240 for China which will probably have faulty speedometer failures before they lift off the runway. It's a win only for the defense industry.

Erm. Is this a real projection? Looks a bit shit for the f35c.

There are only 340 F-35Cs planned. I can see more getting ordered in the 2030s if F/A-XX gets delayed.

Very disappointing to see. If the F/A-XX is cancelled, at least increase the F-35C buy.
>How is not an absolute boondoggle with no purpose
You don't build fighters exclusively to counter opposing fighters (Which I absolutely do not agree with your assessment on). SAM networks and EWAR are also starting to proliferate around the world, which the F-35 particularly excels at dealing with.

It was never planned for the F-35C to replace the Super Hornet, it was always a legacy Hornet replacement. F/A-XX is the true Super Hornet successor.

But if we go by the earlier posted image, it seems to be cancelled.

The image only goes to 2030. F/A-XX will not be in service by then.

yes, but my opinion has changed from positive to negative.

jsf is starting to do very very well as an air platform, and it's the best in the world at its chosen role.

however its contract hangs like smog over the entire defense industry and has changed how every competition is run. this has had deleterious effects on my industry

Your fault for not buying McD stocks :^)

This image dates back to ~2006. If the Navy's made no discernible progress since then and the program was intended to enter service around 2030, then I think it's fair to say it was cancelled.

Attached: FA-XX.jpg (693x522, 67K)

The actual ACQUISITION doesn't even start until 2030, with a planned in-service date of 2035. There's no reason for an image showing a projected carrier air wing in 2030 to include it, we probably won't see it in significant numbers until 2040.

Long distance runners are skelingtons and the female ones have dogshit hip:waist ratios.
Peak female aesthetics is to be found either with the high jumpers or the pole vaulters.

Attached: Alysha Newman.jpg (875x960, 84K)

I used to think it was a piece of shit with wings and a bank breaking price tag.

Now I think it's a decent plane with wings and a bank breaking price tag.

>Disregards the fact that even the USAF didn't like the F-104 and only bought 296
Absolute Lockheed cope

Attached: 1563559089374.jpg (468x571, 52K)

>McDonnell Douglas
>F-16

>only bought 296
That's more than EF/Gripens/Rafale or Su-35 in service, isn't it?

Bit sad you have to be dishonest in comparing aircraft, by not comparing bought for both.

Basically all a case of the F-16 could do this, but priority went to other aircraft.

>AGM-65 compatible
F-16 could fire Mavericks, but the USAF didn't put much priority into training and equipping them with it had hundreds of A-10s to fire them. There was like one squadron in Desert Storm that was firing them, everything else was from A-10s.

>GBU ready
F-16s could drop laser guided bombs, but of course it needed a pod. And the US didn't have enough LANTIRN pods to go around for both the F-15E and F-16, so basically all went to the Strike Eagles (and even still they had to do tons of buddy lasing because of pod shortages)

>Aim-7 compatible
Couple squadrons were modified for national guard use, but the USAF decided to save money by waiting for the AMRAAM. Except that development dragged so what was supposed to be available in the mid 80s wasn't ready for the early 90s.

No it's still shit.

ahhahahaha butthurt he's right??