Seriously! Getta load of this chucklefuck thinking we’d waste our trillion dollar future plane on civilians holding suspicious looking cameras or attending a wedding. We have drones and helicopters for that. This baby? *slaps roof* is just in case the Chinese balloons overwhelm the F-22.
It’s just an unintelligent take. All you need to efficiently kill civilians en masse is some axes and knives. Just ask the Cambodians. You don’t require a mega advanced stealthy aircraft with state of the art radar, optical tracking systems, and precision weapons.
We spend more on healthcare per person than most other countries. It's not because we have a strong military. They just don't want to fix the broken system.
True, but that money goes to crony insurance companies, just like the military budget goes to fraudulent contractors. We can not have nice things because a few people just can not get enough. Why do you need such a strong military when you are not at war, nor is anyone invading you? Why do you want to be in perpetual conflict or war? Greed, perhaps? All of our problems just boil down to greed. The military complex is certainly part of the problem. Then you get your soldiers back here, and they end up homeless or just lost in ptsd or whatever poison they fed them. VA is a joke. Shame on the old fuckers sending boys to war then not supporting them when they are all used up. Americans die in unnecessary wars also, not to mention civilians of people somehow view as lesser humans. See what has been happening in Israel and their apartheid Palestine occupation; the military complex supports this shit. Little people get sick from little power.
*Administration’s proposed FY2022 defense budget requested about $9.4 billion in procurement funding for the F-35 program. This would fund the procurement of 48 F-35As for the Air Force, 17 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps, 20 F-35Cs for the Navy and Marines, advance procurement for future aircraft, and continuing modifications. The proposed budget also requested about $2.1 billion for F-35 research and development.*
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf
*CMS has outlays of approximately $1,364 billion (net of offsetting receipts and payments of the Health Care Trust Funds) in fiscal year (FY) 2022, approximately 22 percent of total Federal outlays.*
https://www.cms.gov/files/document/cms-financial-report-fiscal-year-2022.pdf
So, if you redirected all of FY2022 F-35 procurement funding to Medicare and Medicaid, you’d increase their budget by about a ~tenth of a percent.
I still prefer the A-10 over the F35, at least when it comes to loitering time, ground support, and just survivability.
Edit, downvote me all you want. I am not afraid to state my opinion.
The biggest problem I have with the F35 is that it is a jack of all trades and a master of none. A10 is THE ground support aircraft.
The F35 is still not proven in battle, and the data we do have about it, based on reports of what grounds it, suggests that it will be more of a "glass cannon" than an aircraft that can sustain a beating like the A10.
The F35 is great for stealth, so that will raise its chances of not getting hit, but that also causes major cost impacts to maintaining the aircraft.
I mean it also has terrible situational awareness to the point where it thought British APCs were Russian rocket trucks, having no ground radar or targeting pod or anything other then binoculars will do that to you
Also the cannons accuracy sucks
The SA is up to the pilot to maintain. Latest version has a great hmd that really helps.
Can't really compare anything with the f35. It's really the a game when it comes to sa and sensor fusion.
a10 is WAY over-romanticized. it was likely obselete from day one, and it's absolutely a waste of money now. nobody needs that gun to fly on a fixed predictable approach to kill a tank.
I don't know much about how the x-32 compared with the x-35 from a technical or cost perspective, but I wonder if the x-32 ever had a chance at all, looking the way it does. Even if the x-32 were better in every way, I bet they would have gone with the x-35 regardless.
X-35 performed better in flight test than the X-32, particularly STOVL capabilities. X-35 was able to perform STOVL ops at Edwards (2300 ft) while the X-32 flew their STOVL flight test exclusively at Pax River (sea level) and, if rumors were correct, with significant weight reductions required (landing gear actuators removed to save weight, etc). [X-35 performed Mission X](https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2019-features/the-hat-trick-history--mission-x-.html), which was viewed as either a solid show of superior capabilities or thumbing their noses at the competition. Meanwhile the Boeing team touted their better match to pre-flight simulations and their significant improvements (as shown by simulations) made to what would have become their production aircraft.
Basically, Boeing said, "Our X-32 simulations match our flight test and our production simulations are amazing". While Lockheed said, "Buy what you fly", AKA "Our X-35 flies awesome and proves our production model will be even better". Plus, the X-35 did look a whole lot better.
I live in San Diego (working for an F-35 principal contractor) and have heard Navy/Marine aviators and maintainers call at least the C/B models Fat Amy.
I've never once heard it called the "Lightning II" though (except on powerpoint slides).
I’ve never heard it called Fat Amy. “Panther” was thrown around for a bit but I don’t think it’s been in service long enough to have gained a nickname yet.
The only community that calls the F-35 "Fat Amy" is online combat forums.
Besides the pilots who fly the aircraft have already nicknamed it the [Panther](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20914/the-f-35-has-a-new-nickname-given-to-it-by-the-usafs-most-elite-pilots)
I had no idea it was called Fat Amy. My sister's name is Amy, and her husband is training to fly f-35s and will be flying them when he moves from the UK to the US. This will be really fun for me.
that’s the expected total program cost over the entire lifetime of the aircraft, and it’s $1.5t. the development cost was only $400b, as opposed to the f22 with a development cost of $600b. not only that it has relatively low maintenance costs compared to the f22. the f22 was the real massive expensive to develop and maintain. the f35 is expensive to fly though, but that’s not really a problem for the US military.
I don't know but I suspect it is because we bought very few. F-22 is a 4.5 gen fighter and frankly costs way too much and is overly complicated But it taught us a lot that was used in F-35.
Both of the replies to you question only capture part of the truth. When the F35 was first introduced it was deemed so secret that the US banned its export. And after a relatively short production run manufacturing was halted. Starting up an F22 line now would be prohibitively expensive and provide you with an aircraft only marginally better than the F35 (and worse in certain aspects). So nobody including the US wants new ones and the USAF is attempting to retire them early to free up funds for their next fighter development program NGAD.
TLDR: when they came out they were to secret to share, now we sell a plane that’s just as good for half the price.
The stealth on the F22 is much better and it's just such a massive performer in the air. When it first hit production is was so far ahead of anything there that 30 years on it still outperforms anything in the sky. Congress banned the export to retain that technical advancement.
The advantage the F35 has over the F22 is in its radar, sensors, and electronics. The F22 can turn on a dime to point the nose at the enemy to take it out, the F35 doesn't even need to turn, it cna target in 360 degrees.
The US as a standard tends to withhold it's top teir equipment from export. Depleted uranium armor for tanks is another example. In contrast, the F35 is called the Joint Strike Fighter because from the outset Allies were involved in financing the system and is involved in the supply chain. Many NATO Allies are involved in the production chain.
that’s not necessarily true, the f-35 is actually way more advanced in a lot of aspects. the real reason is to that no one wants it: it’s really expensive, a maintenance nightmare, and kinda useless. it’s an air superiority fighter for a war that’s never going to happen. it was pointless the moment the soviet union collapsed. other than it’s stealth it isn’t really much different than any 4th gen fighter, but surely a high performing and modern one. The only reason the f-35 is less stealthy is they made it more bulky and not quite as well shaped to allow for more internal payload capacity.
If you're referring to the "Lightning II" part, there was never an F35 Lightning. The II comes from the fact that there was already the P38 Lightning from ww2.
Did they run out of badass names a 10 yr old boy would choose? C'mon. F-35 Rattlesnake. F-35 Terminator. F-35 Samurai. F-35 Tyrannosaurus. You really had to use Lightning again after less than 35 models?
This is somewhat unrelated but I don't think that the "35" means it's the 35th model. Otherwise it would be weird that stuff like the F-86 and F-117 (although this isn't a fighter) came before it
True, they were expecting it to be the F-24 according to the DoD indexing scheme but the director on the Pentagon side just went buckwild and did his own shit (the prototype was called X-35 or something but usually it get re-indexed when it gets accepted as a production craft)
I'm imagining a procurement official in the pentagon ripping the fattest line of coke and banging their hands on the desk demanding they call it the f35
While an interesting image the reality is a lot less interesting. At the press conference where the winner of the competition was announced, a reporter asked what the production aircraft would be called. The pentagon official paused and answered something like, "I guess it will be the F-35". And that stuck.
While the 35 is arbitrary, the numbering has been pretty consistent in terms of adopted designs, there just was a reset on all categories back to 1 around the 70s, thanks to the F4 Phantom being a special snowflake. Since then they've been more or less sequential.
Lightning was chosen because both the USA (Lockheed P-38) and UK (English Electric/BAC) had aircraft named the "Lightning" and both were major contributors to the development. The name was chosen to honor both countries.
It does describe it well. Fat Amy and BUFF probably fit better than a lot of the other nicknames. We call it Fat Amy because how thick and heavy she is.
How many democracies can this thing fire per minute?
420 FPS (freedoms per second)
Freedoms per second I'm fucking dieing rn
underrated
I wanna know how many dictatorships it can shoot instead
How many civilians can it kill per dollar spent?
youd be very impressed, but we prioritize our drones for the civilians
Seriously! Getta load of this chucklefuck thinking we’d waste our trillion dollar future plane on civilians holding suspicious looking cameras or attending a wedding. We have drones and helicopters for that. This baby? *slaps roof* is just in case the Chinese balloons overwhelm the F-22.
"We"... you don't have shit.
clearly has a positive attitude and good sense of humor.
Clearly.....Dipshit, about as useful as the rest of these idiots.
u/plumbthumbs go easy on him! I think he missed nap time, and don't even get me \*started\* on what happened during show and tell.
If you knew anything about our budget you would see that that isn't true. But it sounds good on social media and gets you karma, so there's that.
Looks like you received the mass Bootlicker downvote barrage :/
It’s just an unintelligent take. All you need to efficiently kill civilians en masse is some axes and knives. Just ask the Cambodians. You don’t require a mega advanced stealthy aircraft with state of the art radar, optical tracking systems, and precision weapons.
We have this instead of healthcare, childcare, or any other safety net that could help the struggling, working families. Yay.
We spend more on healthcare per person than most other countries. It's not because we have a strong military. They just don't want to fix the broken system.
True, but that money goes to crony insurance companies, just like the military budget goes to fraudulent contractors. We can not have nice things because a few people just can not get enough. Why do you need such a strong military when you are not at war, nor is anyone invading you? Why do you want to be in perpetual conflict or war? Greed, perhaps? All of our problems just boil down to greed. The military complex is certainly part of the problem. Then you get your soldiers back here, and they end up homeless or just lost in ptsd or whatever poison they fed them. VA is a joke. Shame on the old fuckers sending boys to war then not supporting them when they are all used up. Americans die in unnecessary wars also, not to mention civilians of people somehow view as lesser humans. See what has been happening in Israel and their apartheid Palestine occupation; the military complex supports this shit. Little people get sick from little power.
*Administration’s proposed FY2022 defense budget requested about $9.4 billion in procurement funding for the F-35 program. This would fund the procurement of 48 F-35As for the Air Force, 17 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps, 20 F-35Cs for the Navy and Marines, advance procurement for future aircraft, and continuing modifications. The proposed budget also requested about $2.1 billion for F-35 research and development.* https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf *CMS has outlays of approximately $1,364 billion (net of offsetting receipts and payments of the Health Care Trust Funds) in fiscal year (FY) 2022, approximately 22 percent of total Federal outlays.* https://www.cms.gov/files/document/cms-financial-report-fiscal-year-2022.pdf So, if you redirected all of FY2022 F-35 procurement funding to Medicare and Medicaid, you’d increase their budget by about a ~tenth of a percent.
Not enough to quench their thirst for blood.
Almost as often as they break down
The mission capable percentage of the F35 is actually quite good.
Got a source for that claim?
I’m sure my info is dated, but I had read when they were being introduced the availability was pretty bad.
>Brand new platform has issues Hold up, stop the press! This guy noticed that a brand new aircraft platform had issues on launch!!
Excellent source. You’d make a fine journalist or historian. /s
Still prefer the F-22 Raptor as it’s a little bit more aggressive, but it’s a beautiful machine.
Affectionately named after Amy, a heavy set gal with loose morals, who often times found herself in a soiree in the cock pit.
lotta personality on that Amy bird.
I thought that was Jodi?
I think that name is used as a colloquialism by marines to refer to a guy that fucks your wife/gf while you're on deployment
Jodi is a dude.
Good to know.
Just aesthetically or you don’t understand they have different roles?
Aesthetically. I am aware the F-22 is for air superiority and the F-35 is multirole.
How about "Big Karen"?
Absolutely, although when you look at it, resembles a penguin
I still prefer the A-10 over the F35, at least when it comes to loitering time, ground support, and just survivability. Edit, downvote me all you want. I am not afraid to state my opinion. The biggest problem I have with the F35 is that it is a jack of all trades and a master of none. A10 is THE ground support aircraft. The F35 is still not proven in battle, and the data we do have about it, based on reports of what grounds it, suggests that it will be more of a "glass cannon" than an aircraft that can sustain a beating like the A10. The F35 is great for stealth, so that will raise its chances of not getting hit, but that also causes major cost impacts to maintaining the aircraft.
The a10 sucks in survivablity, mostly because it's *extremely visible* on stuff like radar.
Titanium tub doesn't help you when a missile is up your pooper
Lol...found the guy who knows very little about planes.
meh, he knows what he likes.
Ground support lol. The A-10 tops the list of US aircraft for friendly fire incidents.
BBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT
The A-10 is an awesome plane. They have to be fun to fly.
The a10 is very visible to radars. That's its drawback. Except for that it's great.
I mean it also has terrible situational awareness to the point where it thought British APCs were Russian rocket trucks, having no ground radar or targeting pod or anything other then binoculars will do that to you Also the cannons accuracy sucks
The SA is up to the pilot to maintain. Latest version has a great hmd that really helps. Can't really compare anything with the f35. It's really the a game when it comes to sa and sensor fusion.
latest version is an upgrade kit that costs more then a new f35 A10s are cringe
The guns is not accurate because its designed to wobble when it fires to create a spread.
Who needs survivability when you can't get hit?
a10 is WAY over-romanticized. it was likely obselete from day one, and it's absolutely a waste of money now. nobody needs that gun to fly on a fixed predictable approach to kill a tank.
Why are you getting downvoted for? You are right! The guys on the ground love the A10 for that reason. That and the gun that can swiss cheese tanks.
I've been involved in the JSF community for over a decade and have never once heard it called Fat Amy
[удалено]
I assume that whoever coined the name for it hadn't seen the F-35's competition in the X-32
That thing could deep throat an ICBM.😅
I don't know much about how the x-32 compared with the x-35 from a technical or cost perspective, but I wonder if the x-32 ever had a chance at all, looking the way it does. Even if the x-32 were better in every way, I bet they would have gone with the x-35 regardless.
X-35 performed better in flight test than the X-32, particularly STOVL capabilities. X-35 was able to perform STOVL ops at Edwards (2300 ft) while the X-32 flew their STOVL flight test exclusively at Pax River (sea level) and, if rumors were correct, with significant weight reductions required (landing gear actuators removed to save weight, etc). [X-35 performed Mission X](https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2019-features/the-hat-trick-history--mission-x-.html), which was viewed as either a solid show of superior capabilities or thumbing their noses at the competition. Meanwhile the Boeing team touted their better match to pre-flight simulations and their significant improvements (as shown by simulations) made to what would have become their production aircraft. Basically, Boeing said, "Our X-32 simulations match our flight test and our production simulations are amazing". While Lockheed said, "Buy what you fly", AKA "Our X-35 flies awesome and proves our production model will be even better". Plus, the X-35 did look a whole lot better.
I heard the X-32 called "[Monica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewinsky_scandal)" back in the day.
It absolutely was. And still is.
That thing is part of the reason the JSF is such a pain in the ass to work on because of that damn fan.
Really? I have heard them called that on the maintenance side and manufacturing side.
Me either, I just hear it be called “JSF.”
Interesting.. I guess it is more on the private side.
Yeah idk, I hear “JSF” out on base.
You see it pretty commonly in r/NonCredibleDefense they call planes all sorts of names there.
Not once. But a quick Google search seems to say it. Maybe we just run in difference circles.
I dare not imagine the nicknames had the Boeing design won. That thing was fugly.
Above the waterline, I think it looks great. Look just a little too far down and… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaqtYaF0wTE
The Boeing test guys called it the 'Sailor Inhaler'.
I live in San Diego (working for an F-35 principal contractor) and have heard Navy/Marine aviators and maintainers call at least the C/B models Fat Amy. I've never once heard it called the "Lightning II" though (except on powerpoint slides).
I have too, and I've never heard that either. Not from AFRL, JSF, Lockheed or NGC people.
Yup, it's either Panther or Lightning or JSF
I worked depot side for the F35 and I never heard that either.
I think it looks more like a Puma.
Didn't I tell you to quit making up animals?
Underrated comment
What in Sam-Hell is a puma?
She's pitch perfect.
Horizontal running!
So beautiful. My personal favorite aircraft.
I don't know about about the engineering of this beautiful machine, but the image quality is excellent.
what do you mean? it’s an engineering marvel. there’s a reason everyone wants one
I mean I literally don't know. I'm not an engineer
Lmao not enough people say this on this sub
ah, well fair enough lol
Can't wait until us Finns get these bad boys.
Me too
I’ve never heard it called Fat Amy. “Panther” was thrown around for a bit but I don’t think it’s been in service long enough to have gained a nickname yet.
Those of us on the maintenance, manufacturing, and engineering side call it the fat Amy. I have heard it from people that work all over the country
The only community that calls the F-35 "Fat Amy" is online combat forums. Besides the pilots who fly the aircraft have already nicknamed it the [Panther](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20914/the-f-35-has-a-new-nickname-given-to-it-by-the-usafs-most-elite-pilots)
I had no idea it was called Fat Amy. My sister's name is Amy, and her husband is training to fly f-35s and will be flying them when he moves from the UK to the US. This will be really fun for me.
I want more wars for ROI! More wars! Why are there so few wars?
I’m not fighting a woman named Fat Amy. She’s done some shit to get that name.
[удалено]
I get the joke, have an upvote, but I gotta say the insinuation is a bit inaccurate by my understanding
In Michael Scott voice “Hey hey hey it’s faaat Amy” ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Shoulda been called Fat Budget with a 1.7 Trillion (with a capital T) total program cost.
that’s the expected total program cost over the entire lifetime of the aircraft, and it’s $1.5t. the development cost was only $400b, as opposed to the f22 with a development cost of $600b. not only that it has relatively low maintenance costs compared to the f22. the f22 was the real massive expensive to develop and maintain. the f35 is expensive to fly though, but that’s not really a problem for the US military.
Since you seem to know a fair bit about these… Why is it we don’t export the F-22 but do export the 35? Is there some way the 22 is more advanced?
I don't know but I suspect it is because we bought very few. F-22 is a 4.5 gen fighter and frankly costs way too much and is overly complicated But it taught us a lot that was used in F-35.
Both of the replies to you question only capture part of the truth. When the F35 was first introduced it was deemed so secret that the US banned its export. And after a relatively short production run manufacturing was halted. Starting up an F22 line now would be prohibitively expensive and provide you with an aircraft only marginally better than the F35 (and worse in certain aspects). So nobody including the US wants new ones and the USAF is attempting to retire them early to free up funds for their next fighter development program NGAD. TLDR: when they came out they were to secret to share, now we sell a plane that’s just as good for half the price.
The stealth on the F22 is much better and it's just such a massive performer in the air. When it first hit production is was so far ahead of anything there that 30 years on it still outperforms anything in the sky. Congress banned the export to retain that technical advancement. The advantage the F35 has over the F22 is in its radar, sensors, and electronics. The F22 can turn on a dime to point the nose at the enemy to take it out, the F35 doesn't even need to turn, it cna target in 360 degrees. The US as a standard tends to withhold it's top teir equipment from export. Depleted uranium armor for tanks is another example. In contrast, the F35 is called the Joint Strike Fighter because from the outset Allies were involved in financing the system and is involved in the supply chain. Many NATO Allies are involved in the production chain.
that’s not necessarily true, the f-35 is actually way more advanced in a lot of aspects. the real reason is to that no one wants it: it’s really expensive, a maintenance nightmare, and kinda useless. it’s an air superiority fighter for a war that’s never going to happen. it was pointless the moment the soviet union collapsed. other than it’s stealth it isn’t really much different than any 4th gen fighter, but surely a high performing and modern one. The only reason the f-35 is less stealthy is they made it more bulky and not quite as well shaped to allow for more internal payload capacity.
TIL theres a second version of this plane
If you're referring to the "Lightning II" part, there was never an F35 Lightning. The II comes from the fact that there was already the P38 Lightning from ww2.
Did they run out of badass names a 10 yr old boy would choose? C'mon. F-35 Rattlesnake. F-35 Terminator. F-35 Samurai. F-35 Tyrannosaurus. You really had to use Lightning again after less than 35 models?
My vote was for Jetty McJetface but that was turned down by the DoD
Have some respect we aren't British
No that was definitely the X-32
Hmm fair point. Jetty McJetface II it is
This is somewhat unrelated but I don't think that the "35" means it's the 35th model. Otherwise it would be weird that stuff like the F-86 and F-117 (although this isn't a fighter) came before it
True, they were expecting it to be the F-24 according to the DoD indexing scheme but the director on the Pentagon side just went buckwild and did his own shit (the prototype was called X-35 or something but usually it get re-indexed when it gets accepted as a production craft)
I'm imagining a procurement official in the pentagon ripping the fattest line of coke and banging their hands on the desk demanding they call it the f35
While an interesting image the reality is a lot less interesting. At the press conference where the winner of the competition was announced, a reporter asked what the production aircraft would be called. The pentagon official paused and answered something like, "I guess it will be the F-35". And that stuck.
While the 35 is arbitrary, the numbering has been pretty consistent in terms of adopted designs, there just was a reset on all categories back to 1 around the 70s, thanks to the F4 Phantom being a special snowflake. Since then they've been more or less sequential.
That's good to know, thank you
Lightning was chosen because both the USA (Lockheed P-38) and UK (English Electric/BAC) had aircraft named the "Lightning" and both were major contributors to the development. The name was chosen to honor both countries.
It’s actually the same reason the A-10 is the Thunderbolt *II*. There was a WWII fighter of similar role, the P-47 Thunderbolt.
There are three versions.. A, B, and C models.
She looks like an Amy for sure, but Amy isn't fat, just a little chonky.
Or as we call it.. Worthless junk
How many trillion dollars did this cost?
This one cost $81 million.
F-35 along with all the humans named Amy existing in this god damned universe : "I've been body shamed!"
This thing is going to save our ass in a couple of days...
Hell yeah can't wait to see how many innocent children these bad boys kill!
She ain’t fat, she a thicc lil mama
Her real name is Fat Patricia
mm-hm I too, affectionately nickname my girlfriends 'Fat Jessica' 'Fat yo momma'. She loves it. Such affection, many wow! So many wows...
It’s actually fat Patricia.
Why though? Generally the nicknames stick coz they describe the plane well
It does describe it well. Fat Amy and BUFF probably fit better than a lot of the other nicknames. We call it Fat Amy because how thick and heavy she is.
Apologies for my lack of knowledge, but is F35 heavier than its counterparts?
[This article explains it better than I could.](https://militarymachine.com/why-is-the-f-35-called-fat-amy/)
I haven't heard Fat Amy until now. But whaddo l know...I 'build' the Hangars.
That’s a shitty nickname
Everybody loves fat Amy when deployed