How does it just keep winning?

>>63895248 (OP)
How many F-35s does Europe have at this point?

Built by italiano chads and not germcucks or frenchdivas

Did they fix the kill-switch issue yet?

>>63895401
that's a feature

>>63895401
>Be Norway
>Have 52 operational 5th-gen jets
>Hear about an alleged kill-switch
>DGAF because Norway and America will always be on the same side
>Have 52 jets to bomb Russia with

>>63895248 (OP)
>massive cost overruns
>heaps of bad press
>starts to get cheaper from economy of scale
>sees combat and kicks ass
>just in time for the EU to drastically increase military spending
Perfect storm for big orders.

>can't VTOL

>>63895482
Great point, lets settle this by having an F-35B and a Harrier fight to the death. VTOL will surely win.

>>63895490
Okay but they both takeoff from a helipad 10x10 meter helipad surrounded by ocean.

>>63895490
I accept your concession.

>>63895495
lol dumb Indian

>>63895428
Then some monkey prez in the US decides that bombing Russians is no bueno and presses the kill switch.

>>63895494
Done, the F-35 can STOVL with 12.5 tons of fuel and arms. Lets give it 3,000kg of fuel and 4 AIM-120s at 640kg so it's about 9 tons under max load and will VTOL just fine.
Look up what the Harrier can actually VTOL with and learn why it's flown STOVL in practise.

>>63895248 (OP)
because it's started from a position of being shit on by everyone for perceived failures it managing to do the missions it was designed, built, and specialized for is somehow an incredible win to normies.

>>63895248 (OP)
Switzerland has F35?

>>63895428
>because Norway and America will always be on the same side
Even when Retard-in-Chief supports russia?

>>63895401
brown

>>63895543
they inked the deal back in 2022 for them, but have been talking about it and doing evals for a while.

>>63895502
>>63895401
must we do this every thread?
the "kill switch" is just discontinuing parts and support
which every nation can do
(it's the main problem with shitty Airbus and Eurocopter aircraft, for example)

>>63895560
forced obsolescence isn't a kill switch, but you know, US companies loves the idea of degrading a device to make it useless or simply brick it

>>63895574
>forced obsolescence isn't a kill switch
Some times it is, a white goods company was caught putting timers in goods that just killed the chip after X hours.

>>63895580
That's bricking the device.

>>63895574
>forced obsolescence
the buzzword is "planned obsolescence", actually
and it's propaganda: all devices have lifespans, you can't build a device that will last forever
so people seize upon this very simple concept and make up stupid shit which is essentially the consumer appliance version of "YOU SEE THE EXPIRY DATE ON YOUR FOOD? THEY DESIGNED IT SO THAT IT WILL ROT AFTER A FEW DAYS! FUCKING PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE!!"

one of the drawbacks of ever slimmer gadgets is ever slimmer microelectronics, which oxidises faster and so breaks down faster
the consumer solution is simple: don't buy overly-complicated gadgets
no, it's not worth shelling out an extra $300 for the model that is 2mm thinner

>>63895580
>the legendary Sony Timer! after all these years? where you been hiding you crazy sonofabitch
may we see a photo of this timer?

>>63895613
No photo because it's software and it was HP.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2010/11/hp-inkjet-printer-lawsuit-reaches-5-million-settlement/index.htm

There are more if you want to look, just search "Programmed obsolescence lawsuit".

>>63895613
>t's propaganda
just lol, no it isn't

>>63895613
>and it's propaganda: all devices have lifespans, you can't build a device that will last forever
No. One thing is for example forcing obsolescence by better safety standard or requirements, other very different is using the legal framework to avoid independent servicing, bricking the device or adding a partial or total hardware-as-a-service clause.
All the meme of the incandescent lamp conspiracy is retarded when you know about standars and the re-rating formula, but then there's retards like you using that as for the motte-and-bailey fallacy

If you make a product and then use the grey zone to turn it into a hardware-as-a-service is very different than dropping support of your old hardware or going bankrupt. Of course they'll breakdown but there's no deliberate attempt of degrade that device to a service that needs continuous authorization of the maker because they added parts to destroy its usefulness in a specific way and moment if they want to.

>>63895634
/pol/ is here in droves, thus the blatant stupidity

>>63895632
it's just a slew of allegations settled out of court
not very conclusive is it?

>>63895640
TL;DR I agree with some of that and disagree with some of that (especially HaaS and SaaS) but using that to claim timers and chips is horseshit, c'mon
>retards like you using that as for the motte-and-bailey fallacy
take a running jump, I didn't even mention lightbulbs

>>63895652
>not very conclusive is it?
If I accused you of wrong doing and took you to court would you fight it or give me money?
Keep in mind if you prove your innocence you can force me to cover your legal fees.

>>63895613
>all devices have lifespans, you can't build a device that will last forever
It's actually a different issue entirely.
1. Making the device longer running literally costs money. 99 out of 100 customers don't want to pay for long life of a product and buy based on autistic spec sheet comparisons, "lifestyle" or vibes. It also sometimes imposes design choices (and I don't mean visuals) which make the product "worse" from a consumer experience standpoint. Most would say fuck that based on those issues alone.
2. Engineering talent degraded over the last 50+ years across the world. You don't need conspiracy shit, a regular run of the mill engineer just makes shit because that's what is the result of his work. Some of this is not having experience. Some of this is fast product cycles. Some of this is being naive and believing specs from vendor catalogs, and chinks just lie about specs of their crap 50% of the times at minimum. So your company bought plastic which shouldn't crap by itself, but it does. LMAO.
3. Management being beancounters. You want part A because it will less likely fail 5+ years down the line? Okay, now try to defend that choice before management, since the part A is more expensive than part B. Yes, the price difference is small, things quickly add up if you greenlight more expensive parts everywhere. Will the product sell more because you've used part A? No. Will the company be able to charge more because part A was used? Also no. Will most consumers even use the device after 5 years? Probably not.
4. Some of the bullshit is imposed by the goyvernment. Like lead-free solder, which is the most obvious recent example, and which fucks up things in the long run.

>>63895663
>If I accused you of wrong doing and took you to court would you fight it or give me money?
For most companies it's cheaper to settle, because actually running the court case costs a ton of money. If court cases were free and fast, they'd have them play out.

>>63895678
>For most companies it's cheaper to settle, because actually running the court case costs a ton of money
That's why I pointed out that sueing for legal fees is extremely common, no matter how much it costs if you are innocent it's covered.
Also giants like HP have a legal team on staff that are getting paid either way.

>>63895652
>t to claim timers and chips is horseshit, c'mon
It's impossible to know if the F-35 can be bricked when SHTF and an ally wants to attack the US, to give an example. But it's a fact that JSF partners and clients (minus one country) can't integrate their systems, and they can't have their own infrastructure to support the mission-related infrastructure to use the F-35 in a modern battle fields. Not only they can't but they aren't allowed and the US relied on the NATO "joint" intelligence to create a walled garden for their systems. When Europe created Galileo they're forced to redesigned to make it easier to jam by the US.

cont. >>63895667
Engineering a planned failure is actually harder than not doing it. Things fuck up and fail for thousands of reason. Bad choices, bad assembly, cost-cutting measures imposed after the initial design was done, materials and parts being provided by vendors which are out of spec (which often happens even without malicious intent), and so on and so forth. If you'd try to engineer in a hardware failure deliberately to happen say 3 years into the future then it would most likely failed too soon instead and cause way more issues for the company.

>>63895690
>no matter how much it costs if you are innocent it's covered.
That's not how it works. The verdict can come 10 years down the line. Up until that time you're paying for the case to run out of pocket. And yes even for big companies with a ton of money that's still an issue.

>>63895613
>and it's propaganda
Most people have never designed or produced shit in their lives, so they'll never believe this.

>>63895702
So I can just make shit up and major corporations will give me $5m to go away?
Why aren't there armies a lawyers constantly doing this to every company? Seems like easy money.

>>63895715
>So I can just make shit up and major corporations will give me $5m to go away?
Partially. If you can make shit up which seems probable enough to not get dismissed outright and which ideally can garner enough attention, then yes, companies quite often do payouts for shit that doesn't exist. Most large companies literally have to allocate a budget for paying out legal scammers.
Like bruh, it's an issue with even non-big businesses. Like open a business which has to deal with people and you'll encounter those scammers.

>>63895715
>Why aren't there armies a lawyers constantly doing this to every company? Seems like easy money.
1. There are in fact those armies of lawyers.
2. It's cost money to attack as well.
3. Sometimes it doesn't work out or the potential payday is smaller than anticipated.

>>63895663
I have some modern experience with this
TL;DR everyone, victims included, just wants a quick apology and settlement rather than the truth
sad but true
in one case I know of, it was advised that the client should make a private apology, settle privately, and essentially put a gag order on all future media communications
the client argued that this was dishonest, has the appearance of paying off the victim to shut up, and he wanted to make a public apology and explain the exact nature of the fault
he was advised that the P.R. backlash of further public discussion would be worse than, essentially, paying off the victim
this was proven to be true
frankly, if you asked ME
>would you fight it
>Keep in mind if you prove your innocence
I'd have said hell yeah fuck yeah
but now I know better
what would happen is a long-drawn out P.R. disaster with everyone blaming HP, and when the verdict is handed down the victim would allege that the judge was paid off by HP
post-truth world, remember?

>>63895715
>major corporations will give me $5m to go away?
yes
>Why aren't there armies a lawyers constantly doing this to every company?
there are
>Seems like easy money
the company can hire better lawyers so you run the risk of getting cleaned out before the chips fall your way

>>63895667
>1.
fucking 100% agree
>2.
maybe
I'm not an engineer
>3.
I AM a beancounter however. look, all we do is crunch the numbers and tell you that we can make x sales at price point a, y at b, z at c, that's it
going back to 1., more often than not, durability doesn't sell
it is what it is
I, personally, shop for durability and specific function, which form follows. everyone I know calls me a scrooge and an idiot, and then moans about inflation. what do?
>4.
agreed

>>63895692
that's not very uncommon in military kit
I really think the Windows XP + USB generation just cannot fathom how stovepiped stuff used to be

>>63895713
days like these I really think democracy was a mistake

>>63895715
>So I can just make shit up and major corporations will give me $5m to go away?
You can often do that without even filing at case, yes. Invoice fraud is a thing. Consider Evaldas Rimasauskas, a Lithuanian retard who between 2013 and 2015 orchestrated an invoice scam targeting major tech firms:
- He registered a shell company in Latvia mirroring the name of Quanta Computer;
- He used fraudulent emails and invoices, complete with forged contracts and official-looking stamps to deceive accounts‑payable teams at big tech companies;
- The companies wired the funds, which were rapidly laundered through bank accounts across multiple countries;
- Google and Facebook (possible also Apple) wire‑transferred nearly $100-120 million into accounts he controlled;
Like bruh, he literally sent invoices and got companies to pay him for nothing.

>>63895768
>days like these I really think democracy was a mistake
True, but all tried modern alternatives are/were even worse

>look, all we do is crunch the numbers and tell you that we can make x sales at price point a, y at b, z at c, that's it
I know, but quite often it's just needing to hit the price point of the competitor who makes default shit. You can make a better product, but it being more expensive is often a death sentence. The demand often isn't elastic, because the market has the cheaper product beside yours and thus it's not like you'll send 10% less product, you'll send 2-3x less of the amount. Shit's grim.

But yeah, people are retarded and just don't want to pay for reliability, long-life, serviceability and so on. And also often have weird ideas about parts being available. Like bruh, maybe we'd like to sell you parts for your 10 y.o. device, but it's not like we made the part for it, it was COTS crap made by a different vendor, they've stopped producing it years ago.

>>63895802
>serviceability
serialization doesn't makes a product cheaper, same thing applies to dumping prices with compulsory adds and telemetry (see "smart" things like IoT, IP cameras, phones and TVs).
It's simple enshittification.

>>63895828
I meant being able to more easily maintain the product. It requires a ton of things to take into account, cost money, requires specific design choices and so on and people don't give a shit about that (in reality, not when spewing bullshit words).
The service-crap you see is just trying to get an additional buck because most products become cheaper as time goes due to inflation which people don't see and you can't just jack up the prices as easily to compensate for that. So business try to see where they can make a quick buck on top of the product. Or ideally catch that magical thing called recurring revenue.

>>63895802
>being more expensive is often a death sentence. The demand often isn't elastic
yep
it's rare to find engineering teams who understand this however. they're often caught up in the ecstasy of "we can build this [horrendously expensive] nanometer product that can do THIS if ONLY someone can be found to buy it"
and then blame us poor legume-reckoners for saying no
>they've stopped producing it years ago
it hurts me too when that happens to stuff I buy, but I guess my stint in corporate made me more sympathetic
but the average joe feels that s/he's deliberately being scammed, and just can't be convinced otherwise

>>63895828
I do agree that aaS, IoT, and whatever the opposite of "right to repair" is bad
but I think the solution is simply not to buy those things

personally, I have zero voice and motion-activated devices in my house, and the only networked devices are the router, phones, CCTVs and laptops
a handful of remote-controlled appliances have been installed under protest

low-tech = low-cost, and quite often, longer life

>>63895401
>>63895502
>>63895574
>>63895546
Go back.

>>63895844
Quite often it's literally people being retarded themselves and then whining about consequences of their own actions and choices. For example they compare fuckin' expensive old products that did like one thing with their shiny new cheap overdesigned shit filled with a ton of non-essential electronics and then whine why doesn't it work for 20 years. Like bruh, your grandma's stove did one thing and cost a ton, so had to be bulletproof, and yeah people actually maintained it. It didn't have fuckin' WiFi, Bluetooth, a crappy voice assistant or even a display. And on top of all that crap for retards and women it's also cheap as shit, if you compare it with income levels and such. You'll throw out your shit in 2-5 years and buy a new one, not even because it will break but because your pussybrain will want a new one with yet another retarded bullshit feature.

>>63895896
quite

>Like bruh, your grandma's stove
the refrigerator myth in particular pisses me off no end
I fucking grew up with one of those green things, we still have one lying around somewhere (deactivated)
they suck balls; capacity was painfully tiny and they guzzled power
we love the new fridges, provided they don't come with a screen and radio; preferably just a box, compressor and isobutane

consumer appliances (aka "white goods" which is the most Betty Crocker industry term I've ever heard) range from 2 to 10 times cheaper now, inflation adjusted, than 50 years ago
life is much better today, and people should stop bitching and fucking it up

UKs just bought 12 F35A for nuclear role. Personally i think its a shite idea, but havr no complaints about getting 12 F35As.

Anyone who dislikes the F35 is a freak.

>>63895401
Never was a real issue but the people pushing the idea have shut up now because they're too busy doing damage control after Rafale got BTFO

>>63895546
Does he though, or is Russia still militarily stuck and economically collapsing?

>>63895440
>Heaps of bad press

Brother there hasn't been good press about anything for over a decade or two now. Misery sells.

>>63896023
>Able to carry two nukes AND two A2A missiles while still stealthy.
I am so erect rn.

>>63896023
this is Jaguar-Tornado-Harrier-Phantom all over again
it feels like a panic buy to attempt to scare Russia (who, if anyone hasn't noticed, doesn't actually scare that easy) which is going to bite deep into GCAP

essentially this probably means the FAA giving up 1 squadron of F35Bs

>>63896023
It's a fucking dumb decision.

They're being bought on the basis of swapping out from 12 B-model planes on order - i.e. removing one whole squadron from the carrier strike wing, and we are never going to pay for ASRAAM and Paveway IV certification trials on A-models while there are only 12 of them.
So we are buying 12 jets that can only be used for training, dropping nukes and a remote chance of having a secondary role slinging Meteor if the Italians decide to fund integrating it on F-35A in the same way we are doing it for F-35B for them.
Until there's a follow-on order to replace the Bs we're effectively cancelling, or we buy a lot more As to make other roles viable, it's a stupid decision that we are only really doing to help out the Germans who want F-35 for the same niche purpose, but won't buy enough to make the purchase cost-effective.

We can't even refuel the things with our own tankers, so I would not be surprised if they're not permanently based abroad with the Germans, Belgians, and Dutch and using the NATO MRTT-C

>>63896114
Germany will likely order a second squadron of F-35A sooner than later if Dassault keeps talking shit about FCAS. I don't think Meteor integration would be so far stretched in that case too.

>>63896055
I'm not sure how stopping aid to ukies and denying even selling them stuff is not pro-russian

>>63895401
[redacted]

>>63896512
Enough with the troonspiracy theories. Its called consequences, sweetums. Maybe next time Vladimir (the Ukranian) that ungrateful punk will wear the monkey suit like he was asked to.

>>63896606
troons like you deserve the rope

>>63895248 (OP)
Its a very solid plane, and early criticism of it will be seen in a similar light as of those that focused on the Viper and eagle.

How much fucking longer until Bloc III is certified? Are they still himming and hawing about 2027?

>>63895248 (OP)
lmfao, i remember every single tankie shitting on the F-35 for years, where they at now? hiding in their inferior countries because they can't face the music

>>63896922
Block III is +2 internal missiles for a total of 6, right?

>>63895546
Didn't he just buttfuck Putin's biggest pet on global TV?

>>63897204
No.

>>63896922
Block 4*
2032 as earliest iirc.

>>63895248 (OP)
It was supposed to get shot down by AA, it was supposed to be detected easily, it was supposed to fail in a dog fight, it was supposed to bankrupt anyone who owns it, etc. etc.
Maybe people on Twatter like Musk don't know shit.

>>63895401
Israel is the only F-35 user to not have a killswitch and will always be supplied with parts, maintenance and bombs on a whim.

Even Bongs have killswitched F-35s, so much for "greatest ally".

>>63897239
There's allies and then there's masters.

I've yet to see any evidence of a killswitch

A10cucks are seething ITT

>>63897439
Stop questioning the narrative

>>63897239
It came to me in a dream

>>63895440
>>just in time for the EU to drastically increase military spending
for EU equipment*

>>63897862
>for EU equipment*
>he said, after a fresh F-35 order announcement
>and no new development of substance on FCAS or GCAP

>>63895248 (OP)
To nations that currently have F-35’s, how good do you feel right this moment?Because I feel pretty great

>>63898036
>still hasn't been used in any action that wasn't directly approved by the US

>>63895667
>>63895768
guys, it's even more fucked when people expect software to behave like "long lasting older products" when they don't want to pay even for the most basic elements of it

>>63898043
Pretty sure the Queen Elizabeth was bombing ISIS.

>>63898054
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/28221-Queen-bombs-ISIS

Yeah they did.

>>63898036
Honestly I still think it kind of sucks as a primary fighter. Only 4 internal missiles and such. Why do you think Israel used the F-16 and F-15 to bomb Iran? Why not all F-35i?

>>63897239
This is incorrect and retarded, you should feel bad for pretending to be retarded online.

>>63897239
keep up the narrative, brother

>>63898054
>>63898057
>A part of Operation Shader, the bombing campaign was a joint effort of the Royal Air Force (RAF) 617 Squadron and the United States Marine Corps. According to RAF, 8 British and 10 American jets were involved.

>>63895428
Can you explain why the flags are horizontally flipped?

>>63898158
The flag is always advancing forward.

>>63898226
.......What?

>>63898249
Imagine that the flag is hanging from a flagpole instead of being painted on the side of the jet. Pic related. Per the flag code, the imagined pole is always facing forward, and the flag is fluttering behind.

>>63898249
The American flag leads with the canton because it is the same direction that the flag would be moving if someone were carrying a flag into battle. (The bars would follow behind because the person is moving ahead, thus the canton leads). The idea here is that the American flag is never in retreat.

>>63898256
Ah, naruhodo. I get it now.

>>63898036
Dutchfag here. Feels pretty good. The kill switch stuff made me worry though

>>63897439
There isn't any evidence. It's literally the last desperate gasp of the reformtards/redditors because they have nothing else. It only popped up after the election, mind you.

>>63895307
I did the math and:
Total ordered is 585 out of which 202 are already there.

>>63898406
>It only popped up after
Trump got serious about cutting off the Europeans

>It's literally the last desperate gasp of the reformtards/redditors
It's dizinformatsiya by Russian, Indian and Chinese bots plus sore loser Democrats with TDS plus European agitators who want their own 5th gen and see this as a way to propagandise other Euros into buying European

>>63897439
And you won't ever. Nobody would ever design an obvious killswitch because that would be a PR nightmare. Those things are usually hidden in auxiliary elements. Even with open source shit, which is possible to analyze freely, those things are carefully hidden out of sight. How do you expect for one in an F-35 to be found kek?

>>63898684
How can we prove that there is no killswitch?

>>63898750
In practical sense that would be more or less impossible, however most of the clients probably assume that those killswitches are in fact there and are okay with it. After the whole Crypto AG ordeal thinking otherwise would be naive at best.

We do not know if there is one or not. What we do know is that they can, so the arguments shifts to a "Would they ?"
And i suppose that's left to personal interpretation.
Personally ? Yes, i believe that. Maybe not to major allies like the UK, but for countries that can switch hands / political alliances, i think so. Look at venesuela or iran.

>>63898773
>in a practical sense that would be nearly impossible
Because anything else would hurt your narrative, of course.

>>63898773
>that would be more or less impossible
Unfalsifiable, innit

>>63898793
Bruh, you're really want to have this discussion on 4chang? Like sure, from a technical standpoint a company can hire a third-party, provide them all the data and have that third-party conduct an audit that "there are in fact no killswitches", which sometimes happen in various industries (not about killswitches, but still) for PR or compliance reasons. However we both know that:
a) nobody will provide full F-35 data to some third-party, no matter how trustworthy, because that shit is literally full of sensitive tech, full of classified crap;
b) that third-part at best can guarantee that they "they didn't find X", not that "there is no X" there;

>>63897239
>israel is the only F-35 user to not have a killswitch and will always be supplied with parts, maintenance and bombs on a whim.

lmao, ask the dutch what happens if you try to withold parts from the baby killers f35 fleet

>>63898079
The F-35s cleaned up air defences.

>>63897677
>>63898406
good luck with your parts support!
hope you dont need a (((software upgrade)))
hope your jet turns on!
hope your missiles light up!

you people are pathetic trying to carry water for
>"nuh uhhh! its ok (((our allies))) we would never hurt you! mommy loves you!!!"
dogshit crowd

everythings going to be ok! just suck on binky and ill go get your blanket!

>>63898803
Theoretically vs practically.
Theoretically if everything about F-35 was open-sourced you could point 100500 autistic retards to comb through everything for a couple of years and maybe they'll actually will find the killswitch. But practically nobody in their right mind would ever do that or even think about doing that due to security reasons. The reason Israel has some of the parts replaced by their own shit should make you think.

>>63898810
and what would happen? they'll angrily clap with their wooden shoes?

>>63898823
except that nothing is open source at all abou the F35's software

>>63898819
I'm not sure how retarded one needs to be to not think that there are in fact backdoors in everything. Like bruh even in civilian shit with modern software and hardware backdoors are fuckin' everywhere. Often they're sitting there in open source shit for years, placed as carefully designed fake vulnerabilities. With hardware IP blocks you fuckin' often design your widget with black boxes provided to you by vendors and good luck knowing what happens internally.

>>63898837
That's the whole point, my retarded brown friend.
Even in open source software, which can easily be checked, backdoors live for years if not decades, because nobody actually codes it as /* here be backdoors */ but actually mask that crap. In closed up stuff? Good luck bro. It's a fuckin' jungle there.

>be me
>be rafale enjoyer in current day
>mfw

>>63895401
No but Korean and Turks will happily provided replacements to F35 in next few years.

>>63898848
so we don't know if there is a killswitch
so saying "there is no killswitch" is outright wrong

ah sorry sweaty, but israel just lost 5 of them, and since we have to take government claims as fact, it's never been so ober.

>>63898896
yes here are proofs

>>63898891
You should assume it's there, because backdoors are literally even in your gaming motherboard these days.

>>63898903
that's just well poisoning by MIC. one was even downed by a tomcat (which shouldn't surprise ANYONE); the maverick of tehran.

>>63898928
The Tomcat of Tehran

>>63898928
Why must you lie, moshe, iran by the power of the ayotollah (pbuh) shot down dozens of infidel f35s. Look and trust your eyes brozzer

>>63898823
The point is that you're bandying about a notion that is completely unprovable by your own admission
It's less trustworthy than religion, which at least has a few million fanatics willing to swear blind they witnessed a manifestation
Come back when you got a few apostles who witnessed an F35 killswitch

>>63897239
The British haven't been the US's greatest ally since WW1. After WWII they became an annoying inconvenience that tried to cling to a dead order where they ruled the world. At least they finally accepted that things changed, unlike the French, who've been delusional about their importance for centuries.

>>63898869

>>63898819
.......So, just like literally any fighter on earth?

>>63898891
so we don't know if there isn't a killswitch
so saying "there is a killswitch" is outright wrong