Thread for hating on the F-35 "Lightning II" stealth turkey a.k.a the most expensive military project in history to date.
The USAF declared it ready for service in 2016
As of that date the following problems I can list just off the top of my head
- Vulnerable to lightning; it's practically a lightning rod https://archive.is/QSIii
- 0 redundancies in the cyber or mechanical aggregates; any malfunction
- RADAR glitches means it literally ahs to be turned off and on again https://archive.ph/EEd9y
- Ejection seat is banned for anyone 136 pounds or below and anyone not above 150 pounds has significant injury risk, it literally can break your neck.
- F-35 helmets glow too brightly for air-to-air refueling https://archive.is/pKE0Y
- F-35 helmets are so heavy at nearly 5 kilograms so that maneuvers cause them to bang their heads on the inside of the cockpit https://archive.ph/WsRxA https://archive.ph/dE1gP
(keep in mind these helmets are 400,000 dollars each).
- The oxygen system is unreliable (something that the F-22 shares) https://archive.ph/kGGKq
The Plane was supposed to be ready by 2010-12 having been projected in the early 2000s
the list of problems in its past and that are remaining in various levels of urgency number over 800.
Such as but not limited to
- Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.
- Ejection seat may fail, causing pilot fatality. Lacking safety measures for automatic pilot release.
- Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touchscreen controls.
- The radar performs poorly, or not at all.
- Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.
- Maintenance tools do not work.
- It has inferior maneuverability and aerodynamics to the planes it is meant to succeed the F-16 and the F-18https://archive.is/RmLTT https://archive.ph/20130410175353/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130306/DEFREG02/303060011/F-35-Report-Warns-Visibility-Risks-Other-Dangers https://archive.ph/h0NX6 https://archive.is/Vzv4u
I hate the f35 despite it's defects. the real problem is that it is good enough
to protect american interests. I'm not even talking about stealth (the math and physics involved are hard and/or classified)
, the now 14 years old engine is still one generation above the ws-15, if we were to trust the official figures
>>3152>it is good enough to protect american interests
So are any other fighter aircraft currently fielded by NATO that aren't big fuck ups like the F-35. The stealth is trash and useless because they got tracked by S-400s back in fucking Syria years ago. Stealth is meaningless against any opponent of sufficient technological parity. Using a stealth vehicle as a bomb truck against non-parity opponents is a massive waste of resources.>still one generation above the ws-15, if we were to trust the official figures
LMAO I don't believe that shit for a hot minute. The P&W F135 is unable to let the F-35 supercruise, the WS-15 provides the J-20 this capability. Meantime the STOVL and VTOL shit that it's "so advanced in" is literally based off of patents bought from Yakovlev in the 90s involving the Yak-141*. I'm not even talking about the constant reoccurring problems in the engines over the past 14 years that ought to have been solved years ago.
The F135 is literally just the F-22's engine but with a new fan blade and supposedly upgraded turbine. The fact is the plane is an okayish fighter plane in the vein of the F-16 but with better BVR capability, but that's it. It lacks the redundancy of 2 engines a sea-borne F-18 is known for, it lacks the load-capacity to match the F-18 as well, it can't even carry close to the F-18s load without using external hardpoints that immediately compromise all stealth.
It has absolutely NO businessas a ground-attack or fighter-bomber aircraft as it lacks loiter capability necessary for this. So it can't replace or even supplement the aging A-10. It's literally being shoved into more roles than it can handle. At least a multirole fighter like the Su-57 has the size necessary to carry out various missions. The Russian Navy is still not going to use it in some retarded VTOL variant that eats fuel like nothing else. The F-22 has multirole capability too, but again the US Air Force in the time of the F-22's introduction wasn't retarded enough to use it on carriers or some shit.
Bug List for the F-35
The F-35 is basically a product of its time - overpriced, over "technological" Wunderwaffen that ignores practical military use in a "too big to fail" method. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2021/03/the-f-35-and-other-legacies-of-failure
surely the numbers we have access to are pretty meaningless considering the faster development iteration cycle for modern missiles. the iranians are claiming to have some kind of programmable loitering air to air missile. more advanced countries could fire swarms of these.
came here to post thishttps://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f-35-cant-be-found-after-pilot-ejected
apparently the F-35 is so advanced and stealthy that they don't crash when the pilot ejects, it just goes "missing"
hilarious burger cope
Came here to find some keks about the tweets saying the plane ended up in Havana, staying for the actual real life F-35 defenders.
>>3717 >F-35 in Havana
That would be based if true. Looking forward to the Cuban military using it. >>3716
I mean an autopilot could theoretically have the plane fly until the fuel ran out… but given how janky the F-35 is I wouldn't bet on it.
why do they not have a GPS tracker on it lmao. it's less advanced than my smartphone
It'll be yet another victim of the Bermuda Triangle's mysticism.
>>3722>How incompetent do you have to be to make a stealth plane that only you can't find?
Reminder that both Russian S-400 RADARs and Iranian SAM installations have tracked F-35s and F-22s over Syria.
Russia can't shoot down dumb ass drones routinely bombing their capital, I doubt they can shoot down fifth gen fighters.
>>3724>Yet again 4/k/ demonstrates their retarded understanding of air-defense systems.
Ukraine sends large numbers of them at various altitudes, in densely populated areas near air-fields RADAR units need to validly identify a target, lest they shoot down their own planes.
2) A drone's RADAR signature is extremely tiny, comparable to a stealth aircraft because of their size and the use of primarily composite materials in their construction
3) Due to being low-flying they can hide by using terrain
4) Russia regularly shoots down drones by the dozens, the numbers that get through are pitiful. https://southfront.press/russian-army-thwarts-drone-attacks-on-crimea-moscow-voronezh/
Unfortunately it seems the news about Havana getting the F-35 was untrue. Still it did crash, so that's one less fighter for the USAF. Some /k/opers are trying to claim it was caused by "cyber attack". Probably untrue, but if it was that only makes it more pathetic - your plane can get hacked, that's a real first in the history of aviation so far as we know. https://www.zerohedge.com/military/how-do-you-lose-f-35-us-military-cant-find-stealth-jet-after-mishap https://www.zerohedge.com/military/new-footage-reveals-wreckage-f-35-jet-amidst-speculation-potential-cyberattack
Southfront did an article on just how lame the F-35 is: https://southfront.press/yet-another-embarrassing-episode-for-the-best-fighter-jet-ever-made/
When was that tho? I'm not following it religiously, but it seems all I've seen in awhile are lancet, drones, and occasional tank battle videos.
>>3742>/k/oper didn’t even read the article
it literally just quotes and links to western MSM reports about the F-35 accidents, seethe
So? If you put all Russian fighters together they number less than F35s and have more accidents.
>>3744>If you put all Russian fighters together they number less than F35s
delusional /k/ope>and have more accidents.
even the software is wunderwaffen now
the software is never at fault, it never fails and cannot be hacked!
America has been non stop at war for twenty years, you russians are just jealous of the burger urge to loose forever wars against weaker opponents but you will learn when Ukraine throws you out in a decade
Russia doesn't shoot down burger planes because it would mean WW3 dumbass.
>>3752 >Soviet Union shoots down plane violating its airspace and spying openly<Why isn't Russia shooting down aircraft in other countries airspace or border violations and possibly provoking nuclear war, C-cucks!?!?!
>>3750>America has been non stop at war for twenty years
LMAO imagine being proud of that. Also F-35s have barely if at all been in combat and comparing the crash and malfunction rate of the F-35s to all Russian aircraft is fucking delusional. >you will learn when Ukraine throws you out in a decade
LOL, LMAO even. >>3744 >If you put all Russian fighters together they number less than F35s
And they're all more functional and combat capable. The F-35 being stamped out en masse because it's a tiny fighter with pathetic payload, pathetic speed, pathetic durability, poor stealth (relative to other stealths in the USAF and outside it) and are overpriced to boot. The USAF would have done better making a deep-upgrade, stealth version of the F-16 instead, kind of like the Silent Eagle is for the F-15.
>>3744>F-35 pilot sent to the task of nuking st petersburg>the jet crashes like it usually does and self nukes burgers
dog bless freedom
>>3754>all Russian aircraft is fucking delusional.
Those are mostly very old, a lot of flight hours, even more so since Russia is in its forever war and it will get worse with time, so that's why they crash a lot compared to the F35 even though there are more F35s.
https://archive.is/2023.09.21-183552/https://www.ft.com/content/a3741488-3350-44fd-940f-f0d494d54587<Financial Times - F-35 fighter jets can only fly 55% of time, US watchdog says | Sept 21>The Pentagon’s costly fleet of F-35 fighter jets can only fly a little over half the time, as maintenance issues keep the aircraft on the ground despite the growing reliance on the planes by the US and its allies.>The fleet’s mission-capable rate — or the percentage of time a plane can perform one of its assigned missions — was 55 per cent as of March 2023, far below the Pentagon’s goal of 85 per cent to 90 per cent, the Government Accountability Office said on Thursday.>The report from the GAO, an independent congressional watchdog, was published just days after a Marine Corps F-35 crashed in South Carolina, prompting a search for the plane and raising questions over how it could have gone missing for a day before its debris was located.>The F-35’s share of the US’s overall tactical aviation fleet is expected to keep growing, providing a boon to its manufacturer Lockheed Martin. Each of the fighter jets costs the government about $160mn.>There are 450 F-35s in the US military’s arsenal — variants are used by the air force, navy and Marine Corps — and the Pentagon plans to buy roughly 2,000 more by the mid-2040s, costing $1.7tn over the programme’s life cycle, including $1.3tn for maintaining the aircraft.>It is the world’s costliest defence procurement project, replacing the main fighter for those three branches of the US military, meaning they are “flying an increasing amount of operational missions”, according to the GAO report.>US allies in Nato and Asia, as well as Israel, have also added F-35s to their air forces. The UK defence ministry is one of the largest customers for the aircraft.>“Maintenance challenges negatively affect F-35 aircraft readiness”, with the poor level “due in part to challenges with depot and organisational maintenance”, the GAO said.>The Pentagon is years behind in establishing enough maintenance depot capacity, resulting in repair delays and a 10 per cent reduction in the jet’s mission-capable rate.>Part of the challenges stem from a heavy reliance on contractors for maintenance that limits the Pentagon’s ability to control depot maintenance decisions. Delays also arise from spare parts shortages, inadequate maintenance training, insufficient support equipment, and a lack of technical data needed to make repairs.>The Pentagon will take over managing the F-35’s sustainment by October 2027, making this a critical time for it to reassess the jets’ underlying sustainment strategy, the GAO said.>“We stand ready to partner with the government as plans are created for the future of F-35 sustainment ensuring mission readiness and enabling deterrence,” Lockheed said in a statement.
>>3758 >a couple crashes of a strike fighter actively being used<compared to literally the same number of crashes of a brand-new aircraft not even flying combat missions
LMAO, retard. >>3756>Those are mostly very old
An aircraft should remain combat capable for a few years at the very least, and a decade at least is expected of military fighters and related planes. Compare this to the F-35, which isn't flying nearly as many hours, is not flying combat missions and is literally the most expensive project I've seen in the past 3 decades. >they crash a lot compared to the F35
Except the F-35 crash figures within the same timeframe are comparable in number, in spite of being NEW >Russia is in its forever war
/k/ope harder /uhg/-fag.
>>3764>Helicopters included in the list
LMAO >the military industrial complex of Russia is so weak compared to the west
Russia is poor on production compared to the USSR, but to say this is fucking laughable. The West is literally running out of shells, tanks, rockets and missiles sending them to Ukraine by proxy. This comparison is so lopsided that it's just proving my point, the collective West, in spite of being collectively larger economically than Russia, is failing. Russia isn't producing as many because it neither needs that many, considering its reserves and its doctrine not being one of imperial first-world hegemony. >they push their air frames far above their flight hours limit
Rubbish>the restriction to get western technology needed for their plane
That only applies to passenger aicraft primarily, the majority of soviet aircraft have never used Western technology, and what technology was being used has been replaced in production.
And again the rate of accidents for the F-35 ALONE is higher than Russia's for all airplanes, and if you include all makes of current fights (Eurofighter, F-18, F-15, F-16, etc.) the disparity is even higher. Fucking hilarious /k/ope
>>3764>the military industrial complex of Russia is so weak compared to the west
is that why they are outproducing america + ukraine + NATO + the collective west combined?
are you one of the "NATO is choosing
to lose" people?https://archive.is/20230526112050/https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-03-01/ukraine-outgunned-10-to-1-in-massive-artillery-battle-with-russia.html<According to data from the European Commission to which EL PAÍS has had access, Russia fires between 40,000 and 50,000 artillery shells per day, compared to 5,000-6,000 Ukrainian forces expend.https://archive.is/2023.09.13-202734/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/13/us/politics/russia-sanctions-missile-production.html<Before the war, one senior Western defense official said, Russia could make 100 tanks a year; now they are producing 200.<Western officials also believe Russia is on track to manufacture two million artillery shells a year — double the amount Western intelligence services had initially estimated Russia could manufacture before the war.<As a result of the push, Russia is now producing more ammunition than the United States and Europe. Overall, Kusti Salm, a senior Estonian defense ministry official, estimated that Russia’s current ammunition production is seven times greater than that of the West.<Russia’s production costs are also far lower than the West’s, in part because Moscow is sacrificing safety and quality in its effort to build weapons more cheaply, Mr. Salm said. For instance, it costs a Western country $5,000 to $6,000 to make a 155-millimeter artillery round, whereas it costs Russia about $600 to produce a comparable 152-millimeter artillery shell, he said.
Russia produced 10 5th gen fighters, US more than 1000, but tell me again how Russia is outproducing the west lol
But the Russian planes crash way more than the F35, they are not more reliable. Furthermore Russia couldn't accomplish enough SEAD missions and get aerial superiority in Ukraine because their antiquated aircraft were very vulnerable and their subpar industrial capability doesn't let them mass produce su 57.
That's not even the correct number retard >LOL why isn't Russia wasting billions investing in a gimmick that isn't reliably useful except for specific mission profiles that it already has methods of executing
LMAO>>3772>Russian planes crash way more than the F35
False. You compare all aircraft including helicopters in a list off of wikipedia. And you're goal-post shifting too. On a 1:1 basis F-35s have more incidents, crashes and other problems, in the past few years, let alone the entire 10 year history of the F-35 so far. >Russia couldn't accomplish enough SEAD missions and get aerial superiority in Ukraine
Except that's untrue, that's not even what air-superiority means; air superiority is establishing tactical dominance over the opposing air force, which Russian has done. SAMs are a different matter entirely and Russia has combated those as well, freely flying its fighters, fighter-bombers and strike aircraft on the frontlines, while Ukrainian aircraft all fire their payloads at stand-off ranges because of Russian SAMs: Ukrainian aircraft can barely fly missions because they get shot down every time. Meantimes Ukrainian air defense is retracted far back like a penis in an ice-bath, because anything closer to the frontline gets taken out by artillery, air-strikes, drones, etc. Even behind the front they're not safe from cruise-missile and drone strikes that have destroyed many units. In the meantimes Ukraine has failed to destroy Russian SAM units, with a handful of such targets taken out, mostly at the start of the conflict and consisting of short-range AAA-M systems. >their antiquated aircraft were very vulnerable <The entire arsenal of Ukrainians SAM units have failed to put down more than a handful of Russian aircraft that have been flying hundreds of missions in the past year, making the loss rate a fraction of 1%. >their subpar industrial capability doesn't let them mass produce su 57<Russia<subpart industrial capability
LMFAO, you still don't seem to understand how militaries work, drinking that Burger military-industrial complex coolaid. Most militaries, including the US up until the 21st century, did not produce large numbers of cutting edge aircraft until they were needed. F-15s only started getting mass produced later than their initial introduction, and the F-22 never even hit 200 units because it was far too costly and unnecessary when regular F-15s, F-18s and F-16s flew the same missions far cheaply. Russia is using up old stock first rather than wasting its new stock and choking production of new units rather than modernizing their existing ones and producing more older ones that are still very capable vehicles and are proving so.
>>3773>loss rate a fraction of 1%
Russia lost 1 su 57 which put their loss rate of fifth gen fighters at almost 10%
>>3774>lost 1 >10%
The Russian Airforce was delivered 21 Su-57s, so that's a 5% loss rate going purely by statistics. However again your goal-posts shifted, comparing the F-35 to all Russian aircraft, to suddenly only one, very recent aircraft, how manupulative.
the absolute state of burger math
I simply didn't count the prototypes. They probably failed in a manner of other knowing the reliability of Russian material and the corruption so I was nice in a way.
>>3789>america's $100.000.000 per unit (not including tip and mandatory israel donation) wunderwaffe is as reliable as a soviet plane from the 70s
>>3789>A transport plane has crash on a shitty third-world landing strip
A landing strip most NATO aircraft wouldn't be able to even land on, because they need pristine landing strips. Meantime a single accident from situational conditions and not plane malfunction is meaninless.
The Russians are flying their planes past their expiration date because they don't have the industry to produce enough which make them crashhttps://www.rand.org/blog/2023/08/the-uncounted-losses-to-russias-air-force.html
LMAO that site is fucking garbage, but more importantly the article is literally just an opinion post with no actual sources. It can't even confirm the actual losses of Russian planes in the war because it's using secondary and tertiary sourcing for what little numbers it has. The nonsense about "plane hours" is just pure ignorance, especially considering that it ignores which aircraft are being primarily used in the war and what kind, or rather it ignores the differences of them. Su-35s and Su-34s as well as Su-25s are the main fighting force actively used, the former 2 are new airframes and got additional modernizations and refurbishment in recent times. Many of them are brand new. The Su-25 is literally an armored fuselage with 2 easily replaceable, nearly disposable engines and planing surfaces. All of them are built in with redundancies, and most crashes were the result of pilot error or situational problems.
Meantime the F-35 is a brand-new airframe, is crashing or malfunctioning regularly, and due to inherent design flaws, not pilot mistakes or environmental reasons. The things literally fall apart in mid-air (pic rel).
And yeah, comparing your brand-new aircraft that has been having "teething" problems for the past decade, to older aircraft is fucking pathetic and laughable.
Hooray! This will greatly benefit the working class!
damn anon, this is a really deep and insightful analysis
So part of the reason the F-35 is selling so well is that in the European market it is the cheapest for its size category, compared to the Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale and others comparable Western fighters that are only 4th Generation. This is similar to the F-16 in that regard - higher development costs compared to the F-15 and initially high purchase costs but the price later went down (probably because high-production numbers -> reduced need for prices, basic marketing).https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/cost-effective-f35a-cheapest-modern-western-fighter
Thus the current price is 80 million per F-35. https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/f35-europe-clients-production-dominance-market https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/losing-sorely-president-macron-claims-belgium-s-choice-of-american-f-35-over-rafale-undermines-european-security-as-french-media-slams-brussels-lack-of-continental-solidarity
However it's also unreliable with way too many problems and requires much higher maintenance, leading to higher costs overall. The US army only officially accepted it into production a decade after its intended delivery date. Pentagon Testing Office in 2021 stated that the reliability of the United States' "Most Critical Next Generation Platform" is at "Only 50%" and that efforts to fix F-35 remain "Stagnant". NATO allies also have been complaining about defects in the plane. The Pentagon itself was barely getting any F-35s in 2023, a year after its mass production was approved. https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/f35-rafale-worsening-supply-chain-struggle https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/f35-mass-production-schedule-test
(finally approved) https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/defence-department-undersecretary-ellen-lord-u-s-military-can-t-afford-sustainment-costs-for-its-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/f35-quality-defects-marines-dissatisfied https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/f-35-is-a-piece-of-xxxx-why-trump-s-last-defence-secretary-hated-the-stealth-fighter-and-wasnt-the-only-one
As a reminder, the F-35 remains the only fifth generation fighter in production in the Western world, (thus compatible with a NATO standard military) which makes it the only fighter capable of challenging China’s own fast growing fifth generation fighter fleet (on paper). More importantly the F-35 is a relatively light single engine fighter, and this lacks the endurance, firepower, RADAR size or flight performance of the Chinese J-20 heavy stealth-fighter, which itself will be supplemented by lighter stealth fighters being developed (based off of the F-35 design that the Chinese copied lmao). This is on top of the fact that "although officially operational, the F-35 is restricted to an initial operating capability meaning it is currently not capable of medium or high intensity combat and will require many years to be made fully combat ready."
and has limited air-to-air capability.
Russian interceptions of F-35s also speaks to them being visible on Russian RADARs, making their key feature - stealth - useless.
>>3151>Vulnerable to lightning
How is that different from any other military plane?
>>3918 >To safely fly in conditions where lightning is present, the F-35 relies on its Onboard Inert Gas Generation System, or OBIGGS, which pumps nitrogen-enriched air into the fuel tanks to inert them. Without this system, a jet could explode if struck by lightning.
Most planes will be damaged by lightning, but they're not goin to explode unless hit directly into a critical area.
>>3933>Most planes will be damaged by lightning, but they're not goin to explode unless hit directly into a critical area.
Real life lol. It happens all the time, but it's never considered a significant risk where the jet would easily blow the fuck up >Three E/A-18G Growler jets were struck by lightning on June 6 while they conducted operations over southern Japan, officials confirmed this week. “No personnel were injured during this incident and all aircraft landed safely at Kadena Air Force Base,” Naval Air Forces spokesperson Ensign Bryan Blair said in an email.
Example: https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2023/07/06/lightning-struck-three-growler-jets-over-japan-on-the-same-day/ https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/12/lightning-strike-on-fighter-jet-caught-on-cockpit-video
The F-18 and the Growler are planes the F-35B and C was supposed to replace BTW.
3 destroyed. 1 was shot down and its undeniable, but 2 others, operating from a German-NATO airbase were hit by SAMs and barely managed to return to base, classified as Class A incidents and scrapped. As little information as possible on the English internet is available, given how much of a embarrassment Yugoslavia was to NATO in general, putting up a better fight than Iraq, forcing them to fight for every inch of ground they took.
acig.org used to have a database on every major conflict since WW2 and what aircraft were shot down, where, when and by what, and what the source was. The database was taken down a few years back and only a few pages remain on wayback, mostly those related to Iraq. http://www.acig.info/artman/publish/article_404.shtml
is the only one still functional outside archive and even then not fully since the source links are gone.
I searched archive.is too https://archive.ph/offset=100/www.acig.info
If you check sites like http://www.f-117a.com/Mishaps.html
you'll see that there are nearly 70 mishaps with the F-117, but considering how few details we know even 3 decades later, and the fact that militaries tend to hide losses and label them as mishaps in the bureaucracy, it makes the 1999 incidents quite suspect.
I was unable to find the exact information on the third one, however I did locate a mention of the second, heavily damaged F-117A https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37894/yes-serbian-air-defenses-did-hit-another-f-117-during-operation-allied-force-in-1999 https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2021/03/26/david-vs-goliath-or-how-the-serbs-hit-two-us-f-117s-in-1999/
The 3-number claim is a Serbian one, but given the lack of physical proof the USAF denies it, just as it denies many of the air losses it suffered over Yugoslavia such as numerous F-16s that were shot down by SAMs, with only one being admitted since the Serbs have the crashed parts to prove it.
Even the New York Times talks about how the F-117 was not as effective as the USAF drummed it up to be in PR. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/032899kosovo-stealth.html
>>3990> but 2 others, operating from a German-NATO airbase were hit by SAMs and barely managed to return to base
well then they weren't shot down
>>4007>managed to return to base, classified as Class A incidents and scrapped
They were made non-operational with air defense as the catalyst.
well then they weren't shot down
If you want to whittle it down to the bare nub of it's meaning then no, they were not shot down. They were taken out of action, however, and from the perspective of air defence that's just as good as a kill.
>>3933>>To safely fly in conditions where lightning is present, the F-35 relies on its Onboard Inert Gas Generation System, or OBIGGS, which pumps nitrogen-enriched air into the fuel tanks to inert them. Without this system, a jet could explode if struck by lightning. >could explode
Doesn't mean it would at ever lightning strike.
This is just another safety feature that increases lightning strike resistance over any other jet without inert gas systems.
Okay, let's be really specific abput what is wrong with this.>INTEGRITY-178 is never at fault.
This seems believable. Keep in mind that a hardware issue (like a memory fault, or a piece of hardware that needs to power down before it can interface with the kernel again properly) isn't the fault of the OS, and that even if there was a problem in software running on the OS that wouldn't be the fault of the OS itself. They do have more constraints around what the OS will allow to run that get rid of some issues which could be present on software running on another OS, but this isn't even relevant to dismissing higher level software problems as not the fault of the OS, and of course any human interface can be designed in a faulty way that the OS fundamentally cannot judge the intentionality around. >It never fails,
Again, believable for a limited claim about the OS itself.>and can't be hacked
This is where he jumped the shark. "Can't be hacked remotely" would be a claim that is hard to be 100% on if we're being reeeaaaaaally pedantic, but I would understand what he was saying with that qualifier and might basically agree (I don't know the details, but it could be a believable claim). Things can be hard to hack via physical access – the ORWL was a good example in the space of consumer electronics – but not impossible, and "can't be hacked" without further stippulations is basically a non-starter.
>>4014>t.can't read so "No source!"
Ok NAFO we get it you're butthurt. >>4017>Doesn't mean it would at ever lightning strike.>This is just another safety feature that increases lightning strike resistance over any other jet
No, idiot. this means that the planes NEEDS that inert gas system to be safe. Commercial airliners get hit by lightning all the time and so do military jets as I posted >>3943
The very fact that you need a specific system to prevent the plane from blowing up when hit by lightning, and the fact that it is apparently unreliable to boot, boils down to the same point; the plane is vulnerable to lightning far more than other contemporary aircraft stated to be all-weather. >military aircraft are designed to weather thunderstorms when necessary and complete their missions unscathed, even after lightning strikes. For instance, a single F-106B Delta Dart, a jet fighter from the 1950s, endured over 700 lightning strikes during NASA test flights, yet remained operational. While this is an extraordinary case, it illustrates that a lightning strike does not necessarily spell doom for a fighter aircraft. https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/07/29/natural-lightning-the-thing-that-keeps-the-f-35-from-flying/
A plane that requires a specific system to prevent itself from blowing up and/or frying the computer systems and is prohibited from flying within a 25-mile radius of a thunderstorm while supposedly being a multi-role, all-weather fighter (named the Lightning II FFS) is a shit plane.
Honestly the very fact that back in 2018 the USAF was looking into specifically integrating methods of countering cyber-warfare from impacting the F-35 speaks volumes of software being "never at fault" or "never fails". Although you bring up a fair point about OS not necessarily being at fault, the maxim "never say never" is important, there is no such thing as an infallible system after all. https://defence.nridigital.com/global_defence_technology_mar19/back_door_for_hackers_f-35_cyber_weaknesses_in_the_spotlight
Even sites that absolutely shill the F-35 and USAF such as Popular Mechanics, admit to hacking being a possible threat to the aircraft. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25100725/f-35-vulnerability-hacked/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12535823/Im-former-defense-official-warned-F-35s-catalogue-safety-security-problems-years-ago-HACKED-malfunctioned.html
>>3745>>3744>There are more F-35s!<counts all F-35s produced including for other countries
By that metric we should count every MiG-29, Su-27 (and variants) and other classes of fighter and count them… Hell even just counting Su-27 variants from China, India and Russia already dwarfs the F-35 production line, let alone China's hundreds of other indigenous jets.
>>4032>>N-no source becuz I sed so! >>Everything is ad hominum!
Who are you quoting?
>>4040>Hell even just counting Su-27 variants from China, India and Russia already dwarfs the F-35 production line,
Wow an obsolete 20 years + older aircraft that has a higher accident rate btw was more produced you say? Incredible zigger cope
it’s still blowing up new overpriced NATO dogshit and helping nazi hohols reach their space program so i wouldn’t call it obsolete :^)
>>4064>Seething so hard that he can't write a proper sentence.
1 - by that metric the F-22 is obsolete too, and frankly so is the F-35 since it was originally developed over a decade ago. Age is also not a metric of effectiveness, the Su-25 continues to be effective as does the A-10. The F-15 Eagles is still a superb platform and is even older than the Su-27. The MiG-25 was only retired recently, and contended with the peak of American Engineering, including USAF fighters decades newer than itself while its variation the MiG-31 is still one of the most significant air to air threats to this day.
2 - The Su-27 does not in fact have a higher accident rate than the F-35, in fact its a very rugged plane that can take off and land in harsher conditions, has 2 engines in case of failure or damage to one, and so on. The F-35 is a plane that flies only due to its computer systems which aren't very reliable either.
3 - The production numbers for the original Su-27 and its variants, 680, the Su-30 and its variants, 630+, the Su-35 151+ airframes. All together that's over 1460 Su-27s produced, not counting Chinese Su-27 copies. There are 975+ F-35s of all variants built as of October of 2023 and many of the older ones are those produced prior to being accepted into service and are essentially defective units, not to mention that only 450 of those are actually in US service with a scattered handful in NATO operation, (a few dozen in Japanese and Israeli service for example) and the initial operation capability of those aircraft delivered is barely half, of the 46 received by the Netherlands in 2021, only 24 were capable of operating actively at the time, as the others needed adjustment… a critical issue for an aircraft that is supposed to be a fighter-bomber and the mainstay of Western airforces, not much of a mainstay when battle-readiness of a freshly delivered F-35 cannot be stated as 100% from the get-go.
So TL;DR: Cope more NAFOid.
Unique IPs: 26