Most expensive weapon in history

You silly boys, it doesn't have to be RT that reports this. It's true and out there.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/military-dont-wor...ory?id=32152912

 

You think Lockheed-Martin and other (put-together) foreign defense contractors are better than Boening?

It's another "Airbus" fuckup in making.

 

 

 

 

No, it's not untouchable. Any 4th gen fighter + with HOBS/AIM-9X and helmet mounted cuing sight would blow the F-35 out of the sky. It cannot turn, it cannot shoot, it cannot pitch or roll as fast as its competition. For crying out loud, the B variant and C variant are limited to under 7.5 G's in clean config. A F-16 with full load can do that. A clean F-16 can pull 9 G's fairly easily. The F-35A can do that, but it bleeds energy like no tomorrow.

 

Yes, the F-22 should have gotten helmet mounted cuing and AIM-9X sooner. Guess what, because of the money hole the F-35 is, the F-22 cannot get the funding it needs to obtain these quicker/at all.

 

We should have chosen the YF-23 to begin with.

 

A F-16 with AFTI canards, VISTA 3d thrust vectoring, and XL cranked arrow wing would have been a far superior setup to the F-35. Cheaper by an order of magnitude as welll.

So much this. It's fun to bash the F-35 but it's a very talented machine. Everyone in the know, knows that. The F-22 might be superior, but the f-35, when deployed properly is pretty untouchable right now.

 

You know what empty words are? They are in BOLD

 

"when deployed properly" lol, is that mean no enemy around?

They need to stop trying to make a "one plane to rule them all" because if you water it down, you won't be good at one thing, and sucky at a bunch.

 

Start making F-14's, 15's, 16's, 18's, B-1B's and SR-71's again. Time to take back the throne.

 

Quite correct. This avionics abomination is a jack of all trades and master of none.

I'm not entirely convinced it's a jack of all trades. In my mind, it's a fighter bomber along the lines of how the F-117 was described as a "fighter". Don't even think of taking this to go air to air against any modern Sukhoi, Mig, Gripen, Eurofighter, Rafale, etc. It's a trillion dollar design trainwreck.

The article is horseshit.

 

You know what empty words are? They are in BOLD

 

"when deployed properly" lol, is that mean no enemy around?

 

 

Lol. Really? How much worse is the "Avionics abomination" than the T-50, or J-20? The t-50 can't even go anywhere near it's supposed top speed, has vastly inferior engines and weaker avionics, for example. This excludes the kinetic abilities of the F-35 versus its competitors.

 

Deployed properly means EF-18G jammers with NJG and E-2D Hawkeys AEW near.

The Corsair was also heavily criticized when it was first designed, until pilots "learned" how to fly it. The Corsair ended the war with the highest kill ratio of 11:1. The Japanese called it "whistling death". Hopefully the F-35 will find an active role.

They said the B2 could not fly, let alone be stealth. The M1 tank got such terrible fuel economy it was useless. Also the turbines could not handle any desert dust.

The A-10 was so slow it would get shot down and there were no pilots willing to fly.

The real problem is that some of the vested interests in the military industrial complex are more concerned about their balance statements than the quality of the products they produce.

Lol. Really? How much worse is the "Avionics abomination" than the T-50, or J-20? The t-50 can't even go anywhere near it's supposed top speed, has vastly inferior engines and weaker avionics, for example. This excludes the kinetic abilities of the F-35 versus its competitors.

 

Deployed properly means EF-18G jammers with NJG and E-2D Hawkeys AEW near.

 

That does not make any sense. Why even make a stealth aircraft if you are going to count on jamming? And the enemy will have AWACs too. Il-76 or alternative, in addition to ground radar. And btw, the T-50 would annihilate the F-35 in any heads up. The T-50, even if it couldn't reach top speed, would still be faster than the F-35, it would have higher thrust than the F-35, and its avionics are only marginally worse. It still has IRST. It would carry more air to air missiles, and they are not inferior to western weapon systems.

They said the B2 could not fly, let alone be stealth. The M1 tank got such terrible fuel economy it was useless. Also the turbines could not handle any desert dust.

The A-10 was so slow it would get shot down and there were no pilots willing to fly.

 

I guarantee, no A-10 pilot would ever want to be on the front lines of say invading Russia. They would get torn apart by Zeus AAA, and pretty much any SAM system they field. Against third world countries, sure, no problem. You fly with impunity. In a SAM hot zone, that is as worthless as a Cessna

RT

 

LOLOLOL

 

 

I been watching that network since it came on the air, first it was like a college no-budget TV production, then it was kinda normal for a while, then about 3-4 years ago it turned into a propaganda machine, it's amusing.

 

 

RT is 100% the propaganda arm of the Kremlin....

 

You know how you can tell?

 

They keep saying they're not the propaganda arm of the Kremlin.

In Soviet Russia, plane fly you!

 

Seriously though, the Sukhoi T-50 will give this thing a run for its money.

More than a run for the money. Total annihilation is more like it

In Soviet Russia, plane fly you!

 

Seriously though, the Sukhoi T-50 will give this thing a run for its money.

 

Now, that's impressive. I dislike Russkies with passion, but... that's impressive. They know how to build planes.

I already expect fully blown lame excuses from all naysayers (Lockheed Martin included) how F-35 needs another 5 years and 1/2 trillion to stay ahead.

 

The article is horseshit.

It's like complaining that the fastest car on the road is no good in the snow so it is a POS. Totally the wrong metric.

I don't mean this in an insulting way to anyone, but anything worth talking about with the F-35 or F-22 is classified, so 98% of this discussion is baseless. Unclass news stories are 99.5% worthless and misleading. I realize that's hard to swallow since that's all there is to hold onto, but that is because people are not allowed to know the details of,

 

1) What the weapon systems do.

2) How they do it.

3) Why they do it.

 

That last one, "why," is a big one. Without knowing that, there is no basis for criticism. Hardly anyone not "in the know" really knows why, yet nearly everyone assumes that they do. Not even the journalists writing these articles truly know why, even if they were involved in such things in the past. Even the Chinese can steal every secret known to man from every other country on Earth, but they still can't steal the "why." The "why" is a moving target without any physical substance, always changing and adapting as there isn't much in tactical aviation that is static.

 

My only other point is that Russian aircraft are consistently over-estimated. They are competent enough to be a threat, but judged on their own merits, their shit sucking is heavily compounded and they are usually employed by the world's greatest morons, which adds up to a long track record of combat failure over the last 80 years. If there were an unclassified way to stack up Russian jets vs. American jets like a car magazine, the comparo would probably be shocking. Only the media (and the Russians) succeed in convincing people to love them. Oh, and they're dirt cheap too. There are always highlights on a micro level that the Russians engineer into their aircraft, but those highlights are quickly negated by the morons employing them, the morons maintaining them, and the morons behind their place in their overall moronic strategy (or lack thereof). Since the dawn of powered flight, no Russian aircraft has ever been revealed to show that they suddenly got their shit together more than we do. The media fear-mongered the MiG-17, the MiG-21, the MiG-25, the MiG-23, the MiG-29, the Su-27, etc. etc. etc. ...all of which have proven to be shoddy throw-away machines whose gee-whiz features weren't enough to keep them aloft, let alone in the fight. Only in America will you find a press and open political agendas trying to tear big weapon projects apart out in the open. The only thing you'll hear from the Russians on the T-50 or the Chinese on the J-20 is "it's awesome" as if that suffices to tell the story when their shit is barely holding itself together on a daily basis in reality. Top that off with the fact that winning an air war is a much more complex achievement of a force's capabilities as a whole, and Russian jets just basically look cool and that's about it. Even if the F-35 goes down in history as the biggest boondoggle ever, it'll still be a more productive aircraft than the Russians or Chinese have made (which is pretty pathetic when you consider how many smart people they have working for them). What it really comes down to, more than weapons and materials, is culture. American and western-based English-speaking culture just so happens to have the most optimized ingredients for winning air wars. Sometimes the weapons are outstanding and sometimes they're less than that, but we have a long track record of making everything we have work better than the other guy's stuff.

I don't mean this in an insulting way to anyone, but anything worth talking about with the F-35 or F-22 is classified, so 98% of this discussion is baseless. Unclass news stories are 99.5% worthless and misleading. I realize that's hard to swallow since that's all there is to hold onto, but that is because people are not allowed to know the details of,

 

1) What the weapon systems do.

2) How they do it.

3) Why they do it.

 

That last one, "why," is a big one. Without knowing that, there is no basis for criticism. Hardly anyone not "in the know" really knows why, yet nearly everyone assumes that they do. Not even the journalists writing these articles truly know why, even if they were involved in such things in the past. Even the Chinese can steal every secret known to man from every other country on Earth, but they still can't steal the "why." The "why" is a moving target without any physical substance, always changing and adapting as there isn't much in tactical aviation that is static.

 

My only other point is that Russian aircraft are consistently over-estimated. They are competent enough to be a threat, but judged on their own merits, their shit sucking is heavily compounded and they are usually employed by the world's greatest morons, which adds up to a long track record of combat failure over the last 80 years. If there were an unclassified way to stack up Russian jets vs. American jets like a car magazine, the comparo would probably be shocking. Only the media (and the Russians) succeed in convincing people to love them. Oh, and they're dirt cheap too. There are always highlights on a micro level that the Russians engineer into their aircraft, but those highlights are quickly negated by the morons employing them, the morons maintaining them, and the morons behind their place in their overall moronic strategy (or lack thereof). Since the dawn of powered flight, no Russian aircraft has ever been revealed to show that they suddenly got their shit together more than we do. The media fear-mongered the MiG-17, the MiG-21, the MiG-25, the MiG-23, the MiG-29, the Su-27, etc. etc. etc. ...all of which have proven to be shoddy throw-away machines whose gee-whiz features weren't enough to keep them aloft, let alone in the fight. Only in America will you find a press and open political agendas trying to tear big weapon projects apart out in the open. The only thing you'll hear from the Russians on the T-50 or the Chinese on the J-20 is "it's awesome" as if that suffices to tell the story when their shit is barely holding itself together on a daily basis in reality. Top that off with the fact that winning an air war is a much more complex achievement of the force's capabilities as a whole, and Russian jets just basically look cool and that's about it. Even if the F-35 goes down in history as the biggest boondoggle ever, it'll still be a more productive aircraft than the Russians or Chinese have made (which is pretty pathetic when you consider how many smart people they have working for them). What it really comes down to, more than weapons and materials, is culture. American and western-based English-speaking culture just so happens to have the most optimized ingredients for winning air wars. Sometimes the weapons are outstanding and sometimes they're less than that, but we have a long track record of making everything we have work better than the other guy's stuff.

 

I don't mean this in an insulting way to anyone, but anything worth talking about with the F-35 or F-22 is classified, so 98% of this discussion is baseless. Unclass news stories are 99.5% worthless and misleading. I realize that's hard to swallow since that's all there is to hold onto, but that is because people are not allowed to know the details of,

 

1) What the weapon systems do.

2) How they do it.

3) Why they do it.

 

That last one, "why," is a big one. Without knowing that, there is no basis for criticism. Hardly anyone not "in the know" really knows why, yet nearly everyone assumes that they do. Not even the journalists writing these articles truly know why, even if they were involved in such things in the past. Even the Chinese can steal every secret known to man from every other country on Earth, but they still can't steal the "why." The "why" is a moving target without any physical substance, always changing and adapting as there isn't much in tactical aviation that is static.

 

My only other point is that Russian aircraft are consistently over-estimated. They are competent enough to be a threat, but judged on their own merits, their shit sucking is heavily compounded and they are usually employed by the world's greatest morons, which adds up to a long track record of combat failure over the last 80 years. If there were an unclassified way to stack up Russian jets vs. American jets like a car magazine, the comparo would probably be shocking. Only the media (and the Russians) succeed in convincing people to love them. Oh, and they're dirt cheap too. There are always highlights on a micro level that the Russians engineer into their aircraft, but those highlights are quickly negated by the morons employing them, the morons maintaining them, and the morons behind their place in their overall moronic strategy (or lack thereof). Since the dawn of powered flight, no Russian aircraft has ever been revealed to show that they suddenly got their shit together more than we do. The media fear-mongered the MiG-17, the MiG-21, the MiG-25, the MiG-23, the MiG-29, the Su-27, etc. etc. etc. ...all of which have proven to be shoddy throw-away machines whose gee-whiz features weren't enough to keep them aloft, let alone in the fight. Only in America will you find a press and open political agendas trying to tear big weapon projects apart out in the open. The only thing you'll hear from the Russians on the T-50 or the Chinese on the J-20 is "it's awesome" as if that suffices to tell the story when their shit is barely holding itself together on a daily basis in reality. Top that off with the fact that winning an air war is a much more complex achievement of the force's capabilities as a whole, and Russian jets just basically look cool and that's about it. Even if the F-35 goes down in history as the biggest boondoggle ever, it'll still be a more productive aircraft than the Russians or Chinese have made (which is pretty pathetic when you consider how many smart people they have working for them). What it really comes down to, more than weapons and materials, is culture. American and western-based English-speaking culture just so happens to have the most optimized ingredients for winning air wars. Sometimes the weapons are outstanding and sometimes they're less than that, but we have a long track record of making everything we have work better than the other guy's stuff.

 

 

Per usual, I love you.

 

Also, A russian fighter and a russian truck have the same fit, finish, and radar signature. And a Chinese fighter makes a Russian fighter look good. Both have the kinematic abilities of Felix Baumgartner

Well said SingleSeat.

 

And he is an example of what the AIM-9X can do:

 

SingleSeat makes a good point that I have read various other military people say that a lot of people don't take into account, which is that military engagements aren't just about the individual weapon systems, it's about the whole military period. There's the quality and level of training of the pilots, there's the training and quality of the maintenance, etc...the British flew Harrier jets in the Falklands War which were inferior to the jets of the Argentine military but the Brits had superior training and thus still won.

 

Well said SingleSeat.

 

And he is an example of what the AIM-9X can do:

 

 

What is the AIM-9X doing in that video exactly?

That does not make any sense. Why even make a stealth aircraft if you are going to count on jamming? And the enemy will have AWACs too. Il-76 or alternative, in addition to ground radar. And btw, the T-50 would annihilate the F-35 in any heads up. The T-50, even if it couldn't reach top speed, would still be faster than the F-35, it would have higher thrust than the F-35, and its avionics are only marginally worse. It still has IRST. It would carry more air to air missiles, and they are not inferior to western weapon systems.

 

Because "stealth" regarding an aircraft doesn't mean that it literally is undetectable. What it means is that, provided the proper planning and additional technologies are used, the aircraft should be undetectable. It does not mean that you can just hop in the plane and say go for a cruise over mainland China and not be detected.

What is the AIM-9X doing in that video exactly?

AIM-9X uses thrust vectoring rather than aerodynamic surface deflection. The pilot is wearing the JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System) and is targeting a threat across the circle from him by looking at it. It looks like a drone that was already struck and falling. The missile comes off the rail and makes a wicked hard left turn to make the kill that an older missile could never make. Weapons like this (all the big players have them) quickly change the rules within visual range to the point that a maneuverable jet is nice, but secondary because it can't beat this kind of missile. Reference time 1:26 in this video,

AIM-9X uses thrust vectoring rather than aerodynamic surface deflection. The pilot is wearing the JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System) and is targeting a threat across the circle from him by looking at it. It looks like a drone that was already struck and falling. The missile comes off the rail and makes a wicked hard left turn to make the kill that an older missile could never make. Weapons like this (all the big players have them) quickly change the rules within visual range to the point that a maneuverable jet is nice, but secondary because it can't beat this kind of missile. Reference time 1:26 in this video,

 

When you say, "a threat across the circle from him," what do you mean? Also, by "aerodynamic surface deflection," do you mean like rudders and fins?