The F-35B!

T

Tim

No big deal. I've been pulling off much more impressive landings since BF2.
 

PliotronX

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 1999
8,883
107
106
Gah, I'm torn because as a nerd I love the tech but at the same time the A-10 is/was retired for this overpriced jet and I think the F-15 met the same fate. As far as videos go, I still remember seeing the A-10 rolling backwards on the ground from the recoil of its insane depleted uranium payload.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
100,238
17,895
126
Pretty sure the plane cost more than its weight in hundred dollar bills.
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
Pretty sure the plane cost more than its weight in hundred dollar bills.

Lets see, a 100 dollar bill weighs 1g.
Unloaded weight is 13,199 kg, so approximately 13,199,000 bills are required at a cost of 1,319,900,000 dollars.

Wiki says


F-35A: US$98M (low rate initial production, full production in 2018 to be $85M)[9][10]
F-35B: US$104M (low rate initial production)[9][10]
F-35C: US$116M (low rate initial production)[9][10]



$59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012[8]Not bad.
 

NoTine42

Golden Member
Sep 30, 2013
1,387
78
91
Why am I thinking that the back-hinged "hood" over that front thruster seems like a bad idea.

The front hood closure fails or is damaged in a dog fight, aerodynamics and stealth is ruined so the pilot is now a sitting duck because his hood flew open.
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
Why am I thinking that the back-hinged "hood" over that front thruster seems like a bad idea.

The front hood closure fails or is damaged in a dog fight, aerodynamics and stealth is ruined so the pilot is now a sitting duck because his hood flew open.

Doesn't make sense

1) Dogfights don't exist anymore. And even if they did, if the hood got damaged, chances are that the turbine itself would get damaged too.

2) The only issue would be that he wouldn't be able to do STOVL anymore.

3) If the hood got damaged open, it would rip off during flight

4) Any damage at all to the F35 would seriously damage its stealth capabilities, so meh
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
I agree that we're unlikely to see the traditional dogfight return again given capabilities of fire control systems and antiair ordanance. Doesn't mean these craft are good enough to effectively replace some airframes such as the A10.
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,720
13,883
136
I agree that we're unlikely to see the traditional dogfight return again given capabilities of fire control systems and antiair ordanance. Doesn't mean these craft are good enough to effectively replace some airframes such as the A10.

With all this talk about salvaging the A10 - what about the advances in portable MANPAD systems that the A10 would be highly vulnerable to these days compared with planes that do high-altitude precision bombing?

Maybe a STOVL F35 overall is a waste of money (it was also for replacing the Harrier, not the A10). Perhaps helicopters and relying on full carrier based or land-based jets would have been a better value for the Marines.
 
Last edited:

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Why am I thinking that the back-hinged "hood" over that front thruster seems like a bad idea.

The front hood closure fails or is damaged in a dog fight, aerodynamics and stealth is ruined so the pilot is now a sitting duck because his hood flew open.

im pretty sure the aeronautical engineers at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics are way smarter than you at building advanced fighter aircraft.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,858
4,971
136
I agree that we're unlikely to see the traditional dogfight return again given capabilities of fire control systems and antiair ordanance. Doesn't mean these craft are good enough to effectively replace some airframes such as the A10.

Thumbs up to the Warthog.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Engineers, absolutely yes

Project managers....I really wonder.

Project managers are brilliant imo. They pushed all the cost of their screw ups onto the taxpayer for a decade. What better way to prolong a gravy train than screw it up and get paid?
 

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,458
83
86
what I want to know is, how will Tom Cruise user this new jet in the inevitable remake of Top Gun?
 

NoTine42

Golden Member
Sep 30, 2013
1,387
78
91
Project managers are brilliant imo. They pushed all the cost of their screw ups onto the taxpayer for a decade. What better way to prolong a gravy train than screw it up and get paid?

:D
Yah, thath a spethial kind of brialliance going there.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
With all this talk about salvaging the A10 - what about the advances in portable MANPAD systems that the A10 would be highly vulnerable to these days compared with planes that do high-altitude precision bombing?

Maybe a STOVL F35 overall is a waste of money (it was also for replacing the Harrier, not the A10). Perhaps helicopters and relying on full carrier based or land-based jets would have been a better value for the Marines.

As a harrier replacement it's good. For CAS, see some of the documentaries or read accounts where deep recon or seal squads have to call in for support on their perimeter and how difficult it is when nearest available is via "precision" bomb.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
Lets see, a 100 dollar bill weighs 1g.
Unloaded weight is 13,199 kg, so approximately 13,199,000 bills are required at a cost of 1,319,900,000 dollars.

Wiki says


F-35A: US$98M (low rate initial production, full production in 2018 to be $85M)[9][10]
F-35B: US$104M (low rate initial production)[9][10]
F-35C: US$116M (low rate initial production)[9][10]



$59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012[8]Not bad.

"Not bad", are you F-ing joking dude?, it's the equivalent of a flying "black-hole" money pit and it can't even come close to the performance of the F-22.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,493
5,708
136
I'm a little surprised the C is costing more than the B. Maybe it would change if you assigned the R&D costs of STOVL only to the B?

Naval version does have some significant differences (larger wing, frame\gear enhancements) and the cost is based on a lower numbers of planes. For the time being, there are more B variants than C so the cost spread favors the B
More planes, lower $$$.
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
"Not bad", are you F-ing joking dude?, it's the equivalent of a flying "black-hole" money pit and it can't even come close to the performance of the F-22.

My comment was obviously sarcastic as fuck.

Also, the F-22 was also a giant ass money pit that is ACTUALLY useless. The F35 at the very least attempted to be a bit less useless, (Though in the process it became a jack of all trades, shitty at all) plane.

Both are giant boondoggles. I would know. I worked on the F35 engine for a bit.