>American MIC and aerospace industries cannot be beat.
i mean you literally have just an assembly line you dont manufacture shit europe does and ship it to you
you wont ironically europe has a much larger capacity to produce chips and r&d for them than usa...
remember the r&d center of both amd and intel are in germany france and israel
the amd gpu r&d is in india
the xillinx(now amd) r&d is in japan and in france
usa has only 2 intel fabs in us soil and given how shit their cpu is i wont hold my breath
"Jumped" implies a completed task, since it's a verb in the past tense. Since they don't have a 6th gen fighter, they haven't "jumped" anything. Therefore, by deduction, they don't even have a 5th gen plane yet. They are stuck in 4th and 4.5th gen. Please learn English.
thats not what you meant so please stop being an idiot
>the better platform was effectively doomed to extinction prematurely
The real reason the F-22 production was stopped is because they were already balls deep on the NGAD 6th gen design and it would have been a waste of money to churn out another couple hundred raptors. With a healthy supply of F-15s, F-16s, F-18s and the upcoming F-35s, as well as the increased role of drones, there was no need to throw money at more examples of an air superiority fighter that cannot be launched from a carrier.
It's funny because not even 5 years ago there were wild threads on PrepHole with opinions swinging from 'The F-35 is a flying coffin' to 'The F-35 in on par with the F-22 or perhaps even better to more modern tech'. It's a commercial success, but we still don't know how it will stack up against a peer enemy in actual combat situation.
> but we still don't know how it will stack up against a peer enemy in actual combat situation.
But really what does this mean? For the US "actual" combat is dozens of airframes in the air supporting each other with networked AWACS and hyper battle-space awareness firing BVR missile salvos and then going home.
You don't send an F-35 to do dogfighting in contested airspace.
Literally all the government has to do is focus on cost control methods and they end up with a better product almost every time. Either because the competitor who is willing to do a lot for a little is there to disrupt, and establish themselves. Or because now the company with the contract needs to start getting creative.
I 100% believe it. People act now like the F-35 was good all along, that the massive criticism and outright fear (because a ton was riding on it) in the 00s was all unjustified because of how it is now. But holy hell no, it was bad. 2000s in general were actually a sort of low point for US procurement, a mixture of GWoT fucking a lot of budget stuff, loss of focus and expertise and increasing slush after the end of the CW, just a real scattering of focus and "oh yeah sure just do whatever it doesn't even matter that much really" etc. Not even just in the military, all sorts of government programs, US rocket situation was getting real bad, thank everything CC managed to get pushed through (against serious political resistance).
Yes it wasn't impossible to get things back on track and we did. But it irritates when everyone acts like it was somehow inevitable and really there was no problem in the first place. No, talented people worked hard, even some politicians took important stances. We could easily be in a situation right now in 2023 with no or vastly worse/more expensive F-35, no SpaceX at all, and more. Can't ever take it for granted.
Scale, commitment and just a incremental improvement over previous work (F-22).
AFAIK the most problematic thing was the software side and turning a unreliable tech (stealth) into something useful irl without billions of budget just to keep them stealth.
The darkest part of the program was roughly 2009-2011 when the program was failing to meet initial deadlines and the costs were spiraling upward. A lot of the arguments critical of the F-35 (both good and bad) date from this period. As a result of all the political outcry the DoD forced Lockheed Martin mostly at gunpoint to a cost-sharing agreement and a lot of it came under control.
Some will argue that this is correlation and all the problems were on track to being fixed without the need for the big defence contractor to share financial risk, but doing so certainly provides a big incentive to get things right.
After watching Battle Of The X-Planes, it was pretty obvious that the Boeing was the better plane both in cost and performance. But they didn't chose it, why?
Way back when I went looking around and found some accounts of people online who were tangentially connected to the project. Everyone said it was due to the looks of the Boeing mostly. No one wanted that to be the face of the next gen fighter program.
I guess that's when both Boeing and myself personally learned an important lesson about presenting new ideas to leadership.
How could you watch that documentary and think that X-32 was better?
They tried to make a single-piece wing, and failed. They tried to make it tailless, and failed. They tried to produce a demonstrator that would meet requirements, and failed (changing configurations between the normal flight tests and the VTOL test was... non-trivial).
What metric was X-32 superior at? Not on paper, but in actuality?
Is that supposed to mean something? Anyone with two brain cells always knew it was going to hit mass production. Too much money and time had been invested
The fact that the rest of the Western world is skipping past Gen 5 really confuses me, like you can just skip the tech behind the improved systems and i imagine enough of the useful stuff towards stealth and what not the US black boxed enough that they are going to have to figure it out on their own which..... ya they don't really have experience at doing that.
thats because usa doesnt understand the world
the f35 is marketed as network centric right? a plane that can "talk" to anything out there be it ship plane awacs and shit
here is the small problem the f35 isnt a multi directional node it needs such a node to be able to talk to other users with different tdl's and usa has BACN for it while the rest of the world being sane thought on using multiple links in ships only
do you see the problem that arise from such idiotic move? besides greece(when they get their new frigates) japan israel nobody else has such systems operating
6th gen will elliminate this with pseudo sats like the zephyr 8/s
>japan jumped to 6th >uk also jumped to 6th
Except they don't even have a 5th gen fighter yet.
and? you need a 5th gen aircraft to make a 6th gen?
is there a consortium of generations that dictates that a generational gap is?
"Jumped" implies a completed task, since it's a verb in the past tense. Since they don't have a 6th gen fighter, they haven't "jumped" anything. Therefore, by deduction, they don't even have a 5th gen plane yet. They are stuck in 4th and 4.5th gen. Please learn English.
technically, what's the point? if you want gen5, buy the f-35. it is the only thing that had its development started early enough, with very high ambitions (they can be used on helicarriers). it only came out 3 years after the eurofighter. no other country ever had anything on its level, just some vaporware like the su-57. unless you consider the US a potential adversary, there was no need to immediately go for gen5 after you've just completed your gen4 hardware.
Most people doesn't realize this. But F35 true purpose is not replacing F16. But Harrier. F35 has more in common with Harrier than F16. Remember UK also involved in building F35.
American MIC and aerospace industries cannot be beat.
Bottom text
>American MIC and aerospace industries cannot be beat.
i mean you literally have just an assembly line you dont manufacture shit europe does and ship it to you
based cooperation. sounds fine to me. now we just gotta manufacture even the last bits of electronics in the west.
you wont ironically europe has a much larger capacity to produce chips and r&d for them than usa...
remember the r&d center of both amd and intel are in germany france and israel
the amd gpu r&d is in india
the xillinx(now amd) r&d is in japan and in france
usa has only 2 intel fabs in us soil and given how shit their cpu is i wont hold my breath
thats not what you meant so please stop being an idiot
the better platform was effectively doomed to extinction prematurely, leaving it as the best option actually available on the market
>the better platform was effectively doomed to extinction prematurely
The real reason the F-22 production was stopped is because they were already balls deep on the NGAD 6th gen design and it would have been a waste of money to churn out another couple hundred raptors. With a healthy supply of F-15s, F-16s, F-18s and the upcoming F-35s, as well as the increased role of drones, there was no need to throw money at more examples of an air superiority fighter that cannot be launched from a carrier.
It's 'have been' you fucking ESL redditor
either time is going faster or they finally picked up the pace
i don't know
It's funny because not even 5 years ago there were wild threads on PrepHole with opinions swinging from 'The F-35 is a flying coffin' to 'The F-35 in on par with the F-22 or perhaps even better to more modern tech'. It's a commercial success, but we still don't know how it will stack up against a peer enemy in actual combat situation.
there are no peers to F-35
>no peers
Uh, herro? Awnt you folgetting about DA MIGHY DWAGON?
> but we still don't know how it will stack up against a peer enemy in actual combat situation.
But really what does this mean? For the US "actual" combat is dozens of airframes in the air supporting each other with networked AWACS and hyper battle-space awareness firing BVR missile salvos and then going home.
You don't send an F-35 to do dogfighting in contested airspace.
>peer enemy
The US literally has no peer.
thats how EVERY new thing is talked about on PrepHole
Turns out you really can solve any problem with enough money. The US has lots of money, and loves spending it on weapons. Problem solved.
>The US
the US & friends
It's important to have friends who are willing to put down a few billion dollars each when push comes to shove.
True enough, but that was still a nice to have. We could have done it on our own.
Based Ash Carter fixed the mess.
also this
Literally all the government has to do is focus on cost control methods and they end up with a better product almost every time. Either because the competitor who is willing to do a lot for a little is there to disrupt, and establish themselves. Or because now the company with the contract needs to start getting creative.
I wonder how much of this is true. But I believe it anyway.
I 100% believe it. People act now like the F-35 was good all along, that the massive criticism and outright fear (because a ton was riding on it) in the 00s was all unjustified because of how it is now. But holy hell no, it was bad. 2000s in general were actually a sort of low point for US procurement, a mixture of GWoT fucking a lot of budget stuff, loss of focus and expertise and increasing slush after the end of the CW, just a real scattering of focus and "oh yeah sure just do whatever it doesn't even matter that much really" etc. Not even just in the military, all sorts of government programs, US rocket situation was getting real bad, thank everything CC managed to get pushed through (against serious political resistance).
Yes it wasn't impossible to get things back on track and we did. But it irritates when everyone acts like it was somehow inevitable and really there was no problem in the first place. No, talented people worked hard, even some politicians took important stances. We could easily be in a situation right now in 2023 with no or vastly worse/more expensive F-35, no SpaceX at all, and more. Can't ever take it for granted.
Scale, commitment and just a incremental improvement over previous work (F-22).
AFAIK the most problematic thing was the software side and turning a unreliable tech (stealth) into something useful irl without billions of budget just to keep them stealth.
The darkest part of the program was roughly 2009-2011 when the program was failing to meet initial deadlines and the costs were spiraling upward. A lot of the arguments critical of the F-35 (both good and bad) date from this period. As a result of all the political outcry the DoD forced Lockheed Martin mostly at gunpoint to a cost-sharing agreement and a lot of it came under control.
Some will argue that this is correlation and all the problems were on track to being fixed without the need for the big defence contractor to share financial risk, but doing so certainly provides a big incentive to get things right.
The Boeing option just looked too silly
After watching Battle Of The X-Planes, it was pretty obvious that the Boeing was the better plane both in cost and performance. But they didn't chose it, why?
Way back when I went looking around and found some accounts of people online who were tangentially connected to the project. Everyone said it was due to the looks of the Boeing mostly. No one wanted that to be the face of the next gen fighter program.
I guess that's when both Boeing and myself personally learned an important lesson about presenting new ideas to leadership.
How could you watch that documentary and think that X-32 was better?
They tried to make a single-piece wing, and failed. They tried to make it tailless, and failed. They tried to produce a demonstrator that would meet requirements, and failed (changing configurations between the normal flight tests and the VTOL test was... non-trivial).
What metric was X-32 superior at? Not on paper, but in actuality?
If the YF-23 and X-32 were chosen, the same people would complain about them not picking the F-22 and F-35. People just want to be different.
Turns out it had a 360 degree IRST. Sensors are always king in warfare.
The F-35's DAS is far superior to "normal IRST", they're multispectral high res cameras rather than the old, simpler and bottlenecked IR scanners.
Why is she so smooth? I want to lick it
Is that supposed to mean something? Anyone with two brain cells always knew it was going to hit mass production. Too much money and time had been invested
Sexy belly.
>what went so right?
japan jumped to 6th
uk also jumped to 6th
europe is getting sabotaged by germany as always on anything remotely decent
africa jumped to 1.5
in the end the f35 will be used at its fullest only on handfull air forces around the world
(sucks to be the ones that bought the B variant)
The fact that the rest of the Western world is skipping past Gen 5 really confuses me, like you can just skip the tech behind the improved systems and i imagine enough of the useful stuff towards stealth and what not the US black boxed enough that they are going to have to figure it out on their own which..... ya they don't really have experience at doing that.
thats because usa doesnt understand the world
the f35 is marketed as network centric right? a plane that can "talk" to anything out there be it ship plane awacs and shit
here is the small problem the f35 isnt a multi directional node it needs such a node to be able to talk to other users with different tdl's and usa has BACN for it while the rest of the world being sane thought on using multiple links in ships only
do you see the problem that arise from such idiotic move? besides greece(when they get their new frigates) japan israel nobody else has such systems operating
6th gen will elliminate this with pseudo sats like the zephyr 8/s
and? you need a 5th gen aircraft to make a 6th gen?
is there a consortium of generations that dictates that a generational gap is?
"Jumped" implies a completed task, since it's a verb in the past tense. Since they don't have a 6th gen fighter, they haven't "jumped" anything. Therefore, by deduction, they don't even have a 5th gen plane yet. They are stuck in 4th and 4.5th gen. Please learn English.
technically, what's the point? if you want gen5, buy the f-35. it is the only thing that had its development started early enough, with very high ambitions (they can be used on helicarriers). it only came out 3 years after the eurofighter. no other country ever had anything on its level, just some vaporware like the su-57. unless you consider the US a potential adversary, there was no need to immediately go for gen5 after you've just completed your gen4 hardware.
Most people doesn't realize this. But F35 true purpose is not replacing F16. But Harrier. F35 has more in common with Harrier than F16. Remember UK also involved in building F35.
>japan jumped to 6th
>uk also jumped to 6th
Except they don't even have a 5th gen fighter yet.
>Cheap
>Versatile
>Effective
Its a no brainer really
They designed mass production processes together with a plane. From the very beginning it supposed to be not only superior in tech but in numbers.