Why there's so little will to create support/non-combat equivalent of the JSF program - unified airframe that would require only minor changes for specific roles - AWACS, mid-air refueling, medium weight, long range cargo, maybe even B-52's role of a cheap standoff missile carrier.
Wouldn't is significantly simply logistics, procedures and pilots training, while at the same time require high production rate, that would be easy to scale up during the potential conflict?
Or are they just splitting it into different orders, so every major company can receive some government gibs and stay afloat?
let's make a super expensive jack of all trades master of none unified aircraft just like the F-35
lol, lmao even
>let's make a super expensive jack of all trades master of none unified aircraft just like the F-35
>lol, lmao even
vatnik seethe
you homosexuals are insufferable,
absolutely ruin every single fricking point of discussion imaginable with your wiener sucking vocabulary
>war tourists have literally only one talking point
Go back, I don’t care where you came from, just go back.
t.
guys do people really believe this or is it just bait.
I bet you think the LCS was a good program too
zoomerwalt is even funnier
>"build most expensive boondoggle-at-sea™ ever, give it magic wunderwaffe gun, with ammo so expensive, you literally give up halfway through, never make any ammo for it, then cancel the entire class of ships itself"
when you look at the cost of these failed boats, the failed f22/f35,
basically every program baked after
>"le end of history"
has been an absolute horror-show of horseshittery no other era of MIC production can possibly compare to
kekkek 3 zumms, each LRAP costs as much as a Tomahawk and near frick useless. yeah bro let me park my zumm off your coast and hit you a 50kg artillery shell kek just bring back the fricking Iowa then
>yeah bro let me park my zumm off your coast and hit you a 50kg artillery shell kek just bring back the fricking Iowa then
I dont see how this capability would have ever been useful against any sort of "peer" threat, at all
i truly dont understand anything the US has pursued as its 'hallmark' projects the past 2 decades or so,
none of them work,
and the ones that actually made it to production have a fraction of their intended capability, at 10x the original cost
It's best to think of the main gun on the Zummwalt as a 100mile range artillery piece. The idea being that it's 'stealth' features make it able to get close enough to the coast to not be seen and then just start lobbing rounds wherever, which depending on how many rounds it carried would likely be more efficient than missiles..... then we cut the class down and shit became too expensive.
>zoomerwalt
>*teleports behind you*
AHHAHHA
AHAHHAHAHAH
>i truly dont understand anything the US has pursued as its 'hallmark' projects the past 2 decades or so,
>none of them work,
>and the ones that actually made it to production have a fraction of their intended capability, at 10x the original cost
The purpose of MIC is to make money for shareholders, not providing value to the customer.
>The purpose of MIC is to make money for shareholders, not providing value to the customer.
so when does that start?
zoom out
>no other era of MIC production can possibly compare to
Just look at the entire history of Soviet and russian procurement. Lockmart wishes they could get contracts to build frigates to patrol drying lakes that are surrounded on all sides by friendly nations
>Lockmart wishes they could get contracts to build frigates to patrol drying lakes that are surrounded on all sides by friendly nations
sounds like nato
Uh, yeah, we can't justify making another plane that's...
.... really effective in testing and commercially successful.
>"really effective in testing and commercially successful"
>"in testing"
...source?
yeah, the f35 didn't even sell one unit outside of the US
>F-35 is... LE BAD
It's 2024 not 2014 update your script.
The F35 is a great success, politically and strategically, I applaud Lockheed's shills who did a job as good as with the F104 marketing.
Now the US have many countries who will only use US-developed air-fighter (with critical parts only built in the US) and getting dependent to US standard and future US wingmen drones who will only work best if using the next generation of US aircraft.
As spec goes the F35 is still a letdown. The VTOL version ruined the specs of the others with a very small commonality in spare parts.
Germany only bought it because it's was their only way to get US nuclear bomb for deterrence.
I never said implied the F-35 is LE bad kek
Did you know the F-35 was just envisioned as a "bomb truck" not an air superiority fighter. ffs it only carries 4 AIM-120s internally and no heatseekers. The F-35 isn't a true replacement for the F-22 and F14 bud it's simple as that
>Did you know the F-35 was just envisioned as a "bomb truck" not an air superiority fighter.
then its fricking terrible at that, and has fricking awful range, and is basically the impetus behind the entire NGAD project (range)
oh and Scott Hall would shoot heem mmmmbaadass 7-days a week
>The F-35 isn't a true replacement for the F-22 and F14 bud it's simple as that
No shit, nor was it ever intended to be you fricking moron. We've got other programs for that. But note the F-22 and F-14 themselves never actually ended up being important either, they were just-in-case planes for wars that fortunately never happened. The work horses have been F-16, F/A-18 etc, and the F-35 is absolutely a massive upgrade there. NGAD is going to be much, much more expensive then the F-35 and a lot more specialized. We should absolutely still get it and in decent numbers, deterrent matters even if never used in anger. But you're just showing what an ignorant meme spouter you are. Every single pilot report says the F-35 is a great plane and the reports are it's a great platform. It's also reasonably priced (now dropping below $80 million in present day dollars, for comparison final batches of Hornets were $56-67m depending on options) and getting ultra mass produced, which is a good thing all by itself since it turns it into an actual usable plane that won't be a hanger queen in anything short of peer war.
F-35 has absolutely been extremely successful and is a solid upgrade with room for a lot more upgrades over the next few decades whereas the previous airframes were getting tapped out.
>the F-35 is absolutely a massive upgrade there
in what way?
the f35 is a compromise on nearly every capabilty other F- planes have, for muh stealth, and an internal weapons bay
>for muh stealth
Which offers capabilities the other F- planes could never dream about
Far better radar and data comms which multiplies the power of a host of other weapon systems, not just stealth, and also just better basics.
>the f35 is a compromise on nearly every capabilty other F- planes have
Where on earth do you homosexuals get this shit? Like vs the F-18, the F-35A has 50% higher range, over 4000 lbs higher total weapon payload with the option to carry some internal not all external, far better avionics period. Like, it's a straight upgrade in every single relevant measure, AND it can run stealthy.
F35c/b VS F18-superhornet is a more fair comparison
and anyway, there are like less than 30 f35c's delivered, total, so its basically su57 tier
further f35c's have an abysmal readiness rate, the lowest of all f35 variants, for a plane that was already God-awful at the readiness metric in general
>b is a fair comparison
Only in your seething turdie mind.
>c
Same range and payload as the A.
>goalpost shifting
lol every time
how is it "shifting the goalposts" to compare the carrier based F18s, to the carrier based F35's?
you absolute shitbrain
>>the f35 is a compromise on nearly every capabilty other F- planes have
>but anon it's superior not just in stealth or avionics but in weapon payload and range to its targeted replacements
>>uh uh uh but muh readiness on one specific variant that took longer and thus is far newer then the ones getting mass produced by the hundreds
not goalpost shifting
Yeah. I thought I was actually being kind to you by not comparing it to the F-16 but rather the F-18 but sure you can go that way if you want instead. Or by all means go to allied aircraft, the Gripen or whatever you want.
C-130 are cheap compared to fighter jets, so are civilian airliners that are used as base for AWACS/tankers
building a new airframe that's stealth would be very expensive
>steal tankers and AWACS
Lmao why? They're whole MO is flying far enough away from combat behind multiple lines of defense that they'll be protected no matter how visible they are
Stealth tankers allow you to refuel closer to the combat zone which is a good thing, which is why the USN has the MQ-25 Stingray. However, the reason the USN and USAF aren't doing more JSF style programs is because it showed how difficult it is to build something that's worth flying from ground bases while still being able to survive carrier takeoff and landing on the regular.
> how difficult it is to build something that's worth flying from ground bases while still being able to survive carrier takeoff and landing on the regular.
Nobody tell him thehw8s f-4 story
The MQ-25 was designed just so they didn’t have to use a whole ass F-18 for buddy refueling after takeoff.
>The MQ-25 was designed just so they didn’t have to use a whole ass F-18 for buddy refueling after takeoff.
MQ-25 cost $100+million a piece
there are potentially 3 of them in service, and some trainers 7 in total, for a cost of like $800million+
its a ludicrous cost, by any measurement
And if they didn't give a frick about stealth, it would have been given a more optimized shape to hold more fuel instead of being concerned with it's RCS. The MQ-25 is a great platform that addresses a bunch of the Navy's needs and desires, as well as acting as a beta test for some of the concepts for the loyal wingman system that will inevitably accompany F/A XX.
Let's use the C-17 and P-8/E-7/C-40 as an example. A C-17 can carry the equivalent mass of any of the 737 based aircraft at MTOW.
That's not designed to be stealth. Blended-Wing-Body is designed to maximize efficiency at high subsonic speeds.
you mean the 737?
but really those things are pretty drastically different, with filing aircraft being made way larger than they need by sharing a hull with AWACS and transport aircraft. they are significantly different tasks.
Tankers and AWACS are not safe at all? Like, they are huge and obvious, and AWACS are constantly emitting? Non-stealthy ones will easily be shot down by PL-21 or PL-17 fired from a Chinese stealth plane (for instance, an H-20 acting in a fighter role). A stealth tanker would be much more survivable, and a stealth AWACS could turn its radar on and off, making course changes whenever the radar is off.
>Tankers and AWACS are not safe at all? Like, they are huge and obvious, and AWACS are constantly emitting? Non-stealthy ones will easily be shot down by PL-21 or PL-17 fired from a Chinese stealth plane (for instance, an H-20 acting in a fighter role). A stealth tanker would be much more survivable, and a stealth AWACS could turn its radar on and off, making course changes whenever the radar is off.
welp
>pic related
is basically the solution for the forseeable future
Read the fricking thread, you dumb Black person.
i did you homosexual fricking b***h,
and there is nothing coming
there is no stealth refueller that will ever make a difference,
because its fricking stupid.
and the entire fricking purpose of the NGAD .jpg program is to make a jet that doesnt need aerial-refuelled at all
The Navy is already operating a couple of squads of MG-25s which are stealth refuelers, so you're fricking wrong to begin with, and F/A XX isn't the NGAD and will likely not have the same legs so the Navy will want more ability to refuel in contested airspace.
>The Navy is already operating a couple of squads of MG-25s which are stealth refuelers, so you're fricking wrong to begin with,
ahhhh geeez dude, hey wow a grand total of a whopping 4 "stealthy refuellers"! lmfao
and they only cost ~$200 million a piece!!!!!
~$100million a piece if you buy in bulk!!!! (7 total)
>"On 30 August 2018, the U.S. Navy announced Boeing as the winner of the competition and awarded an $805 million development contract for four MQ-25A aircraft to be completed by August 2024.[1] An additional three test MQ-25As were ordered on 2 April 2020 for a current total order of seven"
lmfao, truly^
>refuel in contested airspace.
a moronic fricking fantasy, if there ever was one
>I am too dumb to understand the threat of long range missiles and how contested doesn't mean a direct combat zone
It's okay champ. You'll figure out them big words at some point in the near future.
implessive
What you're describing is the C-130 Hercules, anon. Some day, it's going to be flying over the surface of Mars.
Bombs and fuel are dense, cargo and passengers not so much.
IMO tanker/bomber should be unified into a B-52 replacement.
….isn’t that what’s already being done with air-refueling, AWACs, etc with commercial airliners and transport planes? Why spend more money to develop a specific one?
because it's strategically advantageous to have your hostile aircraft look like hostile aircraft on radar and your non-combat aircraft look like non-combat aircraft
>Or are they just splitting it into different orders, so every major company can receive some government gibs and stay afloat?
More or less.
Weapons are built by corporation that are mostly private, only safeguarded from quitting by the states taking step to prevent that.
When they don't you end up with complete frickup like when the US used their legal system to fine to death industries in other country then have their own US companies buy them.
In general countries try to defend their national interest and giving others the skills and industries to build even just the full airframe on their own would go against those interest.
Finally, good luck agreeing on the specs.
That's why France and Germany can't work together on SCAF and Germany will not join the MGCS project for tanks.
Short term national interest first.
anon, those are very significant changes and those planes are already based on civilian airframes. The F-35 variants have maybe 30% parts commonality between them. It would have been better to just develop different aircraft and tell the Marines to frick off with the VTOL requirement.
>tell the Marines to frick off with the VTOL requirement.
isnt there only like, literally 2 squadrons of VTOL F35Bs...?
not sure why they even pursue this model
especially when the F35c is basically vaporware
>isnt there only like, literally 2 squadrons of VTOL F35Bs...?
Much of NATO who isn't America has a lot of interest or has gotten a bunch of them, and given that a major goal for the F-35 was mass production across not just the US but allies (and in turn commonality, redundancy, tightening alliance etc) that matters. If you have real carriers like the US does then F-35B is more debatable and looks a little worse vs other carrier planes, but holy fricking shit is it an upgrade over the fricking Harrier, and THAT is the bench line for everyone operating small carriers. The B means a lot of other allied countries can field some level of blue water or at least sea<>land assault capability, which is good for America even if only a fraction of what we can do.
Plus it's also of interest to allied nations with special requirements/doctrine, like nordics who want to be able to launch off of short highway segments and distribute their aircraft in case of conflict. I mean, shit, that'd be pretty handy for Ukraine right now too in theory, even though F-35s absolutely aren't on their menu in the foreseeable future. But in terms of demonstrating that distributing your fighters can be useful if you're on the front lines they've shown it.
Doesn't mean we should necessarily do the same thing next time around, though everything may be utterly different in the coming drone era anyway, but it hasn't been just about the marines.
NTA,
IMO, UK should have just modified their new carriers to have catapult instead of replating the deck for VTOL. Catapult are not an incredible technology and give obvious advantage in range and payload.
With electromagnetic catapults it will even become a lot more efficient.
VTOL is a niche that was not worth the effort and led to huge overcost and time lost. If it wasn't for the 35B I bet the aircraft would have been fully operational (instead of an eternal prototype) 10years ago with 70% A/C commonality, superior specs, smaller RCS, supercruise and maybe even bigger internal bay.
>nordics who want to be able to launch off of short highway segments
With the reduced payload for STOVL few fighter have problem doing STOVL.
Only landing would gain in flexibility from VL, if the road hold. As I see it, if you let the enemy bomb your dedicated airfield and every single acceptable highway you should have spent pocket money into AA and extra runway instead.
Ukraine is going to operate old F16 from classic runway, they would rather profit from stealthier fighters with bigger payload to offset the number disadvantage than from VTOL.
>everything may be utterly different in the coming drone era anyway
Indeed.
AI best advantage lies in number, unlike manned unit you don't have to retrain pilots for years.
Cheaper drone is better for quantity without sacrificing in quality because VTOL is only a necessity for short-range microdrone.
Even for small carrier, it would be better to launch drones horizontally/catapult to increase their range and keep the carrier further away if it's better.
Again, Vertical landing have some advantage but given the failure mode in case of crash, I would rather see drones run out into the water than crash vertically on landing.
homie that's too much text
but basically when the british carriers were being made EMALS was a piece of shit and it would have delayed IOC to like 2028.
the british cant even staff a carrier, so it really doesnt matter what launch-system it does or doesnt have, and they only have a literal handful of operation f35's
its simply not a capability britain needs or can fulfill
To all the copers in this thread.
Entered lock-on range
Fox 3, Fox 3.
Bandit splashed.
Why?
A tanker, an AWACS, a missile truck, a bomber etc. all have vastly different requirements.
You also don't need a comical number of AWACS, because they're not supposed to get shot down in the first place
Isn't that sort of what they were proposing when they made that picture in your OP? It's supposed to be made in a few years as a tech demo for a BWB non-combat plane. If it succeeds you might see more planes just meant for cruisin' and doing support working off of the same template.
>unified airframe that would require only minor changes for specific roles
Would you like to tell the class what the frick this means?
>moronic render
>"hey, that's moronic"
>moronic render BUT MILITARY???
They tried: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-10_MC2A
Budget cuts killed it before it ever really got going, and there hasn't been an effort to combine multiple replacement programs like that since then. Using various modified 737-NGs (P-8, E-7) is the closest we've come, and even then there are structural differences greater than existed within the C-135 family.
A single BWB platform that could be used for every role a 707 got used for would be great, but thanks to modern procurement snafus, it's pretty unlikely to happen.