http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/dod-aims-to-back-up-underarmed-fighters-with-networked-arsenal-planes/
>the F-22 can carry just two air-to-air missiles and two JDAM bombs
Why did we build such a piece of shit?
>>28843656
When in A2G config. A2A it can carry 6 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders. Honestly, if they're going to bother using it as a bombtruck against kebab, they should let it use external stores. This is what the F-35 is for, we shouldn't be wasting precious F-22 airframe hours on this crap.
>>28843671
Lockmart shill pls go
The F-22 can only carry two air to air missiles and two bombs.
>>28843674
Are you telling me that you're some kind of memer?
>>28843674
Living proof that plane threads on /k/ are the closest thing to purgatory we have on earth.
BREATH EXERCISES
IN
AND
OUT
Real life is not Ace Combat; you don't need three dozen missiles to do fighter shit. The MiG-21 only carried two missiles in Vietnam, yet it held it's own just fine against the motherfucking United States military.
strange not having an F-35 tread going on right now actually...
lol 2 missiles
2 missiles
>>28843656
Because they were designed for long range combat, F-35 was meant to overcome this but it's a shitty plane with loads of problems.
>>28844147
2 missiles
Arstechnica is proving itself to be lower quality than even Warisboring.
>>28844147
Ahhhh shit here we go.
>>28844188
>>28844199
Checked, and I agree it's an oversight to assume that 2 missiles would be enough.
>>28843656
>2 missiles
>>28844222
Fictional payload
>>28844188
>>28844199
>>28844222
Repeating numbers intensifies
>>28844241
Looks pretty real to me.
>>28844222
>>28844241
>>28844241
your mom has a Fictional payload
>>28844285
Ya cuz she's not a tranny like urs.
>>28843656
Guys, for real though, the F-35 just can't carry enough missiles without breaking stealth, and that's a fucking death sentence for a slow, unmaneuverable plane like the F-35.
So is the F-35 capable of carrying ordinance on external hardpoints? The 2 bomb, 2 missile restriction only seems to matter when it's trying to go sneeki-breeki. If that's not a concern (ie, when we're bombing snackbars), it's payload should be a good bit more substantial, allowing it to be more than a glorified spotter plane.
>>28844222
>Trip 2s confirm only 2 missiles
>>28844313
>>28844313
>Nations paying $100+ million PER PLANE are being told that only 2 missiles is good enough
The F-35 truly is the scam of the century.
>>28844332
Cool. So at least it's not entirely useless.
Unless we go to war with a country that has an airforce that's less than like 40 years old. Then we're fucked.
>>28844241
>>28844344
>>28843656
>Sean is Ars Technica's IT Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland.
Seems like an expert desu
also
>Suggesting you put SDBIIs or AIM-120s on a B-52 or B-1
For what fucking purpose
You can't employ either without getting close enough to put a 1000m2 aircraft in missile range that its pretty much incapable of avoiding
>>28844332
You see these two missiles? Those are the only pieces of ordinance that the F-35 will actually be able to carry in a combat scenario. The rest involve breaking stealth.
>>28844370
Block 3F is 6 x AIM-120D internally carried, friend
>>28843674
This is why we can't have nice things.
>>28844388
>It's five years behind schedule already
>But you have to wait even longer for a decent missile count
DLC: The Plane
>>28844405
Well memed
I give you 4/8 meme points
>>28844370
You are now aware that even with full external load the F-35 has a smaller RCS than a bare F-18.
The stealth aspect is for the opening strikes
>>28844425
What about close quarters doge-fights? it's like that one fat duck in the pond that struggles to take off when the other birds have flown.
>>28844425
Yeah, except thats not good enough is it anon
If an F-18 has an RCS of 5m2
and an F-35 has an RCS of 0.005m2
Its RCS gets jumped the fuck up to nearer 5m2 than 0.005m2. It literally increases in orders of magnitude, but enemy air detection radars don't get weaker. The only time it can really carry shit externally is in a low threat environment, unless you're comfortable with it being vulnerable. This is why internal stores are so vital to be of a decent number.
>>28844459
Its got great AOA performance, and its designed as a lifting body.
Besides which, turn fighting is not something thats done anymore. LOAL and HOBS made sure of that.
>>28844459
>What about close quarters doge-fights?
The F-35 has 360 degree infrared cameras that can prime heat-seeking missiles, which it can fire in any direction. Trying to fight the F-35 in close range would be suicide.
>>28844510
Didn't the 360 thing still have software issues, can't remember where I read it though.
>>28844531
You mean, did they push out a perfect piece of software first time with no bugs?
No. Because that doesn't ever happen.
>>28844540
Still, that means until it gets everything software and hardware sorted out; the F-35 is flying handicapped.
I'm starting to wonder if those threads are made by underage retards or Putin shills.
>>28844485
>unless you're comfortable with it being vulnerable
By that logic every plane flying today that's not F-22 is vulnerable.
There are things like jamming.
And you can have a pair of F-35 flying in full stealth mode and acting as detectors while 30km behind them you have another pair being missile trucks with 12 AMRAAMs.
There is this magical thing called networking.
And soon we'll have 300km range ramjet missiles so your missile trucks can fly 100km behind.
seeing how this is about to spiral into a shitstorm of random arguments.....
anyone got one of those charts showing how the F-35 range on internal fuel is actually a lot better than everything it is ment to replace?
>>28844531
Think it was related to latency and the helmet.
Helmet seems to be constantly updated, will be interesting to compare it in say 20 years to the original prototype.
>>28844638
And just to note, the external pylons for the AIM-120s can easily carry two at once.
>>28844612
Just like every destroyer without lasers and rail-guns is handicapped?
>>28844673
>the only person who read the article
>>28844612
Almost like it is still in development or something lmao
>>28844673
>By that logic every plane flying today that's not F-22 is vulnerable.
Against modern anti air or 5th gen assets? Yes, they fucking are. Thats the entire point. Jamming is good as support, but it can only get you so far.
>while 30km behind them you have another pair being missile trucks with 12 AMRAAMs.
Based on what airframe? 30km is jack shit, anything like a B-1 or B-52 is getting detected at twice the weapons range of the AIM-120. Its a non-starter.
>>28844775
>Based on what air-frame?
The F-35, obviously. You do know that Lightnings can data-link right?
>>28844743
Come on man, not every destroyer was designed to have those in the first place, this was something that was supposed to be a feature of the plane not something that can be retrofitted.
>>28844775
Not american here, I thought the original development period was already over and it's in production for deployment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>28844806
>I thought the original development period was already over and it's in production for deployment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Its close, and the USMC has declared Inital Operating Capability for the F-35B, but its not in full rate production yet. Still doing small batches.
>>28844804
Lots of aircraft can datalink.
But I'm not sure if that would work. You're still jumping up the RCS to 4th Gen tier by doing that.
>>28844297
I can't tell whether it's adorable or pitiful how hard you're trying.
>>28844880
How much does Lockheed pay you?
>>28845094
I wish I got paid to do this.
>>28843656
>we
Canuck or Eurotrash troll pls
>>28843674
Oh dear, its retarded
>>28845094
How much are you paid?
>>28844405
>on schedule for 6 years
>>28844828
>You're still jumping up the RCS to 4th Gen tier by doing that.
Nope.
>>28844775
You do realize that all F-35 needs to do when somebody fires at them at max range is turn back?
And because you fired at those missile trucks you just revealed your position to stealth mode F-35 that are 50km closer. And probably are already firing at you. This time not at max range.
Shit, you could have a tiny stealth drone with IRST flying even closer to you and that drone is sending data to F-35's you don't even see yet.
>>28844828
F-22 has 0.0001 RCS. F-35 0.001 RCS. Even with missiles they are far harder to detect than Su-35. Probably also PAK FA.
>>28844485
Or both you and the previous poster can keep going with asspull figures.
Though i suspect he was just stating a basic point and you decided to run with it
Lockheed commisioned a study into the RCS effects of external hardpoints in roughly July last year and as far as I've been able to find haven't released any results yet.
However common sense dictates that the limiting factor would be that of the weapon itself as to pretend the 0.005m2 would increase thousand fold is laughable at best
Also this is working on the assumption that Lockheed haven't started developing, or wouldn't purchase from Boeing, the details of a reduced RCS hardpoint pod like on the proposed stealth hornet
As for when it could use external hardpoints, this is why we have defense analysts and mission planners.
It is not only possible but highly likely that exentually the F-35 will work in mixed groups of loaded and clean configs, with clean profiles taking the lead and full loaded craft flying in more traditional flightpaths
As for being "vulnerable" can you give any reason, beyond dank memes, why the F-35 with external stores would somehow be any more vulnerable to detection than any of the craft it is replacing or even Gen 4.5 aircraft being touted around the word?
>>28844459
>What about close quarters doge-fights? it's like that one fat duck in the pond that struggles to take off when the other birds have flown.
There are only two reasons to dogfight:
- To gain energy advantage to shoot missiles better
- To target your enemy
Dogfighting is obsolete for the F-35 as it can a missile in any direction.
>>28845690
>can a missile
can shoot*
I accidentally a verb there.
>>28845690
I'd just like to interject that it can't carry AIM-9Xs internally, nor have I ever seen a projected timeline indicating they wish to do so. In fact, I think they'd be rather opposed to it. An AIM-120 is much better use of the space.
>>28845500
>>28845571
>>28845669
Yes, actually.
AIM-120s on external pylons fuck your RCS. It doesn't have to be all the way to 4th gen tier to fuck with what you can do with the aircraft if you've made it 100x as detectable or more.
If I recall I think 1m2 was thrown about for an average missile on a pylon. Thats not good.
>>28846045
??? No? The RCS of a missile is jack shit. It's fucking miniscule.
>>28846045
>If I recall I think 1m2 was thrown about for an average missile on a pylon. Thats not good.
You know what RCS means? Radar Cross Section. What that means is that it's the surface of the object that a radar can see. Quite simply, no AIM-120 has a fucking square meter of surface area visible at any given moment. So therefor, an RCS of a square meter is wrong as fuck. Just learn some fucking science.
>>28846060
>>28846107
Right, so why bother carrying missiles internally then? :^)
>>28846110
>:^)
We can stop replying now
>>28846110
Because the RCS of the missile is higher than the RCS of the plane. Given that the RCS of a missile is already tiny, it really puts into perspective how stealthy these planes are.
>>28846124
Ah I see, no counter argument as usual
>>28846131
Care to back that up, anon?
Or are you the one asspulling numbers now~
>>28846131
Are you fucking kidding? Let's take, the F-22 for example here. With an above-stated RCS of 0.0001 sq. meter, that's equivalent to 0.155 square inch. That's like a housefly. Yes, the RCS of a missle is small compared to a CONVENTIONAL plane like 4th and 4.5 gens, but relative to the Raptor the RCS of a missile it carries is going to be larger than that of the aircraft itself.
Hell, the RCS of the F-35 is only equivalent to 1.55 square inches, which still is going to be a fair amount less than that of a missile.
>>28846151
Diameter of an AIM-120 is 7 inches. Some simple math later, we have a frontal RCS of just under .025 square meters. When accounting for the fins, it should be hitting that on the nose. And that's just frontal RCS. From the side it would be substantially more, but not up to a square meter.
>>28846133
I'm not even in the argument. You're clearly a fuckin' winner though. I doubt you'll receive a counter-argument because you've proven yourself to be such a fucking winner.
Keep doing you champ
>>28846210
Thats not how RCS works, and you're not counting the pylon which was specifically mentioned.
>>28846204
That's literally what I just said.
>>28846222
It's close enough for government work, as they say. It'd be less than the upper potential RCS, which is what I stated.
Look at the pylon. Look at it front on. Is there much surface area?
>>28846257
>It's close enough for government work
Its really, really not
RCS isn't just a function of how much you can 'see' from a specific angle, anon. Not even close.
and I don't know anon, pretty fucking chunky if you ask me
>>28846151
Says the guy claiming
>If I recall I think 1m2 was thrown about
Just popping in to remind people:
>The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/
>"I would say that General Hostage … is accurate in his statement about the simple stealthiness of the F-35 [with regard] to other airplanes," Bogdan said in the interview. The statement was accurate for radar cross section, as measured in decibels, and range of detectability, he said, and he scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/December%202014/The-F-35-on-Final-Approach.aspx
>During a flight debriefing, Col. Chris Niemi and Maj. Nash Vickers both said a comparison of the radar-absorbing F-35 to its nimble but less stealthy twin-engine F-22 cousin might not reveal the whole story.
>Niemi has eight years in the cockpit of an F-22 and is one of the few Air Force pilots who is qualified in both the Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. He said he wanted to set the record straight on the Lightning II, once and for all. “Many have compared the F-22 to the F-35 but that comparison is unfair. With the F-35 Lightning, this fighter sees better, has more range, and is stealthier than any of its predecessors. This airplane, with its fly by wire technology, is super easy to fly and it has a very linear response.”
www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/August/06/F35-Lightning-public-debut-shows-the-right-stuff
>>28846316
>This airplane, with its fly by wire technology
Gets me every time they keep bringing up shit that has existed for over 40 years
>>28846273
>Its really, really not
It's an expression for it being a shitty example, but workable for REALLY lazy people.
>RCS isn't just a function of how much you can 'see' from a specific angle, anon. Not even close.
Of course not. Doing a proper RCS calculation is impossible without knowing all the angles involved. But here's the thing. The areas involved, which I just stated, are pretty much the "ideal" RCS, if you just took the area and had it simply reflected straight back into the radar. Flat surfaces, no angle, etc. In reality, the numbers are far less than the numbers I've stated. Which should really be telling.
>and I don't know anon, pretty fucking chunky if you ask me
Is that ANYWHERE near a square meter, even when added to the missile's?
>>28846045
>>28846060
Considering the RCS of an ALARM missile is 0.1m2 and Tomahawks are 0.5m2, I doubt your "average"
It is not insignificant, but it is no where near the RCS of 4th gen Aircraft, a reminder the F-15 and Su-27 where 15+, the A-10 is 23, the F-16 is around 5.
Bear in mind these figures are again the planes with clean profiles, meaning the same gains from the missiles still need factoring in.
So yes, if you take a simplistic look and add 0.1m2 per missile you may have and RCS of around 0.6m2 with 8 missiles, remembering there are still internals
Now to an F-16 you have 5 base + weapons
4 Semirecessed possible so thats 0.2 (0.1 per missile /2) and 4 more on the wings at 0.4 total there.
The F-16 now has 5.6m2 vs the loaded F-35 with 0.6m2 roughly, that of a single Tomahawk
Now this is an extreme oversimplification as RCS is not additive, it's multiplicative in many ways, refracted returns increase nearby surface returns but you get the picture.
>>28846363
>Considering the RCS of an ALARM missile is 0.1m2 and Tomahawks are 0.5m2, I doubt your "average"
Well, Eurofighter is about 0.5m2, but Tomahawks are chunky.
But again you're missing the pylons like in
>>28846273
They're big in themselves.
Also, 0.6m2 is fucking huge. If the F-35 is around 0.05m2 you've just attached an object one hundred times its radar return to it, some of which will remain ever after launch.
>>28846394
Ten times, rather.
Still not insignificant
>>28846257
Whoops. meant to quote >>28846151
>>28846356
I think they're talking about the specific FBW on the F-35 - all FBW jets are generally pretty nice to fly, but the F-35's FBW, combined with it's mass and high alpha capabilities means pilots just point the jet where they want it to land and things like airspeed are automatically taken care of, while crosswinds, etc affect it less than something like an F-16 due to the neutral yaw stability.
>>28846394
The F-35 and F-22 are supposedly more in the ballpark of 0.0001m^2 while clean
Remember too that detection range increases or decreases by RCS^(1/4)
>>28846424
>Remember too that detection range increases or decreases by RCS^(1/4)
Assuming thats just relative arbitrary 'detectability', not 1km per X m2 or something like that.
How come nobody just goes with continuing development of a stealthy weapons pod that can be mounted on the external hardpoints?
Though I suppose that if the USAF's program of having the AMRAAM successor be half the size and longer ranged, it would make the rationale for it pretty pointless
>>28846409
It doesn't matter how significant the percent change in value is, as long as the aggregate detectability vs it's opponent's is favorable and/or that it maintains low enough detectability to preserve gaps in IAD that it can exploit.
Again, reinforcing that an F35 with external stores is pretty much always going to be the favorable option vs ANY 4th/4th+ gen aircraft loaded similarly.
>>28843656
Wahhh my air superiority fighter cant carry enuff bombs
>>28846409
I did say in the post that it wasn't insignificant.
Tomahawks are both chunky and the folding stub wings are straight, perfect frontal RCS boosters.
But consider that even running external stores that makes the F-35 comparable to a clean Eurofighter,
That is 10+ times better than an F-16 with a similar weapons load, that is not factoring in the fact that the F-16 would need several drop tanks to begin to challenge the F-35's range on internal fuel.
>>28846468
>>28846513
I'm not saying that it won't be better than a 4++ gen loaded with similar stores, just that I don't think the capability jump would be large enough for it to remain viable in a modern high-er threat environment. Which I know, it wouldn't load external stores for anyway.
But the Chinks are making aircraft with big-ass internal bays. They'll eventually miniaturize their missiles and end up with more internal capacity. I think thats the only thing they got right with the J-31/J-20
>>28846045
You know they are working on stealth underwing containers right?
>>28843656
Wasn't Boeing pitching and F-15C/D upgrade package to let them haul 16 AIM120s?
Given that Raptor/Eagle is already a concept the USAF is working with, I feel like using the older 15's as BVR mules flying in behind the stealth platforms should get the brass all hot and bothered.
>>28846553
Like on the F-15SE?
Sure. But it seems like an oversight not to just have a larger internal capacity in the first place, considering how much those pods will weigh.
>>28846556
>Wasn't Boeing pitching and F-15C/D upgrade package to let them haul 16 AIM120s?
Yeah, it requires an avionics upgrade to do it IIRC. They wanted to do it because at one point the air force was jealous that the superbug could do it and wanted something that could do it for themselves.
>>28846481
Actually that's what I thought.
>>28846462
It's entirely possible they might.
In July last year Janes got a confirmation the LockMart where looking for a grant to research the effects of the external stores and possible ways to reduce it.
TL;DR Lockmart are asking for a grant to start making one, assuming Boeing doesn't sell the one they developed or a smaller derivative, considering the pod had capacity for 4 AMRAAM and 2 sidwinders
>>28846000
That and half-lengthers like the CUDA will, long-term, be the missile of choice.
>>28846592
There's two projects going on right now about the subject. A medium-long range AMRAAM equivalent, and a shorter ranged AIM-9 equivalent.
![formel13[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/aAHpFMk.png "formel13[1].png")
>>28846434
That's for obtaining a ratio; so for example:
A certain radar is claimed to be capable of detecting a 3m^2 object at 400km, but the target aircraft has an RCS of 0.0001m^2 in that radar's operating average frequency.
3 sq m RCS fighter: (3)1/4 = 1.316
0.0001 sq m RCS fighter: (0.001)1/4 = 0.1
Ratio: 1.316 / 0.1 = 13.16
Theoretical range for system to detect a 0.0001m2 object = 400km / 13.16 = 30.4km
That assumes that other things don't change like aspect angle, but it's part of the radar range equation
>>28846627
>(0.001)1/4 = 0.1
wat
>>28846675
Typo; 0.0001^(1/4) = 0.1
>>28846627
That would mean
Clean F-35 - detected at 30.4km
0.5m^2 of stores - detected at 255.6km
>>28846727
Please switch over to nmi when talking about military aviation. It's the commonly accepted way to do things.
>>28846727
Considering that AWACS are set up to detect 5m2 at 390 km (210nmi) I think this maths is missing something.
Namely the equations for the quadratics of power loss and scattering over range
But yes, So a clean profile F-35 mission would be dispatched to deal with this Radiation beacon and then the other aircraft would be free to break from terrain masking return to a standard altitude for optimal engagement.
>>28846727
not quite, the 400km for his maths is working on an assumed RCS of 5-6m2, the size of a light combat jet
The detection range would be somewhere in the region of 70-90km
>>28846893
>A certain radar is claimed to be capable of detecting a 3m^2 object at 400km
How is it working with 5-6m2?
and thats pretty irrelevant anyway.
>>28846893
The maths assumes that the 400km corresponds for an enemy with an RCS of 3m^2.
>>28846909
I'm actually citing a max range figure for the Su-35's Irbis-E; presumably it aligns with some aircraft they seek to target (a clean F-15 perhaps?).
For a 5.5m^2 RCS, you just use the same method:
3^(1/4) = 1.316
5.5^(1/4) = 1.531
400km / (1.316 / 1.531) = 465.3km (251.2NM)
Attached is the radar equation in full with terms named.
>>28846909
my bad, missed that bit. was thinking of the stats on the E-2 which are pretty much that
>>28843656
After about 1,000,000,000 threads on this topic, I am thoroughly convinced that:
1. The F-35 is in many ways a good aircraft, and a revolutionary aircraft in a few ways.
2. All the issues with the F-35 are for the most part a normal aspect of the development process, and as such they are temporary issues that will be resolved soon enough.
3. 95% of people who complain about the F-35 are guys who either read 1 or 2 Pierre Sprey articles and bought into his kool-aid OR armchair generals butt-hurt that the real-world military isn't doing stuff the way that they think it should be done.
>>28846991
Also I'm an idiot, I accidentally put a ^2 on "wavelength (m)" - gonna quickly change that:
>>28847075
I disagree with you a little bit on your number 2 point, I think the R&D phase was rushed and they jumped a lot of steps to get a product out the door where instead of taking care of many of these teething issues that are costing more money in the long run, a lot of it could've been taken care of had they not sought to produce as soon as they thought they could.
>>28847476
Nah, by doing a long LRIP process they've eliminated the teething issues older aircraft had that caused total loss crashes and pilot deaths.
>>28844313
>sneeki-breeki
>kek'd
>kek'd audibly
9/10 for you anon.
>>28844313
The 2-bomb restriction is only if the target requires huge fucking bombs, the 1k/2k models. It can do 4 500lbs JDAMs (the most common type in use now) or 8 SDBs. And they're looking to put a new rack into service that holds 6 SDB for a total of 12.
>>28847590
>And they're looking to put a new rack into service that holds 6 SDB
Please don't lie to me anon, I really want this to be true.
>>28847673
I've heard talk of this as well.
>>28847673
Even if there is a 6 SDB rack being made, it won't fit in the F-35 internal bays (to my knowledge), not unless they overlap vertically (or unless they make them fit onto the door hardpoints).
>>28847590
It can't hold 4x 500lb JDAMs internally - there's no adapter for that yet, assuming you could fit 2x their diameter or length. 8x SDBs is correct though, as well as 8x Brimstone missiles or 8x SPEAR missiles.
>>28847819
There's vertical space to do so. The problem would be releasing them, but I imagine it could be done with a minimum of fuss.
Friendly reminder that no other country on earth has a 5th gen. Plane and US has two lel
>>28844673
this
Also, the F-35 can carry 4 missiles internally, not 2.
>>28844775
and yeah, they can just take a flight of F-35's, have two running full stealth up ahead, passive radar, internal load, detecting enemy planes, and behind them are the other two F-35's with full external loadout of tons of missiles
This will get even better when the next gen of A2A missiles get fitted to the F-35, like the Meteor, or the new LM mini-sized missiles they're talking about.
also, an F-35 with external loads will still have a smaller RCS than a 4th gen fighter.
>>28845669
again, this.
>>28844459
what about dogfighting? The F-35 will be more capable than the F/A-18 in a dogfight. It has similar performance according to the test pilots, with the added bonus of better acceleration and even higher AoA abilities. And the Super Hornet is perfectly capable.
>>28846110
>F-35 has RCS of 0.005m^2
>F-18 and F-16 have RCS of ~1m^2
>missiles have RCS of X
>F-35 with missiles internally has RCS of 0.005m^2
>F-18/16 with missiles at all has RCS of more than 1m^2 (1m^2 + X)
>F-35 with external stores has RCS of 0.005m^2 + X
>0.005+X LESS THAN 1+X
seriously, retards. This is obviously a gross simplification, but it's adequate.
>>28847590
exactly. when people say "muh two AA missiles" that's when the F-35 has two fucking 2000lb bombs inside its ass.
By comparison, an F-16 needs to enable CAT III limits when it's carrying heavy bombs like that. CAT III limits it to like 4-5Gs
>>28847958
>By comparison, an F-16 needs to enable CAT III limits when it's carrying heavy bombs like that. CAT III limits it to like 4-5Gs
I dont meant to shit on your post, because most of it is fairly correct, but CATIII limitations only reduce the maximum AoA and also decrease the roll rate, so that it mitigates inertia coupling issues with heavy loads. The F-16 is supposed to be in CAT III even with just the two wing bags. But you can literally just flip the switch to CAT I if you are a bad enough dude to disregard the dash I.
>>28848052
well, yeah, I couldn't remember the exact details, but effectively, an F-16 with any external stores other than AA missiles is severely limited in maneuvering ability.
Who gives a fuck. Compared to the enemy is overkill anyway.
Plus you kill a stealth aircraft with IR not radar as the Brits proved by IR tracking a B2 with a rapier establishment a number of years back.
>>28847958
>seriously, retards. This is obviously a gross simplification, but it's adequate.
Yeah thats great anon, but you're entirely missing the point, so you should probably stop calling people retarded.
The difference between 1 and 2-3m^2 isn't as significant as the difference between 0.0005 and 2-3.0005m^2, and it doesn't impact on your capability nearly as much.
>>28848088
yes, the F-35 has more to lose than a 4th gen aircraft, but only because it starts out with that advantage....
Seriously, I don't understand how people can actually somehow argue that having a bonus advantage is somehow a disadvantage because something can negate it.
>>28848111
>yes, the F-35 has more to lose than a 4th gen aircraft, but only because it starts out with that advantage
and
>Seriously, I don't understand how people can actually somehow argue that having a bonus advantage is somehow a disadvantage because something can negate it.
You're shouting at pidgeons, old man. Nobody was claiming that.
>>28848068
>>28848068
>well, yeah, I couldn't remember the exact details, but effectively, an F-16 with any external stores other than AA missiles is severely limited in maneuvering ability.
This is very true. IIRC you are limited to like 15 degrees AoA in CAT III, so if you are at a slow indicated airspeed it is real easy to butt up against the limiter. Also the roll rate is like, halved.
But if you have enough smash you can pull 9g even in CATIII with the wingbags, depending on what else you have loaded. Two wing tanks + all A2A missiles, no problem.
Oh, and F-16s go NOWHERE without their wingbags. I havent EVER seen one take off without at least the centerline tank, and that was for ACM training. In combat config the centerline station is taken up by the jamming pod.
>>28848152
>But if you have enough smash you can pull 9g even in CATIII with the wingbags
Sounds like a great way to lose some hardpoints
>>28848129
uh, the guy who was bitching that the F-35 ruins its stealth if it has to carry external stores. The implication is that somehow, just because something can minimize a certain advantage, that it's not worth having that advantage in the first place.
>>28848152
because F-16's are quite short range.
A clean F-16 with internal fuel has less than a half, closer to 1/3rd the range of a clean F-35 on internal fuel.
>>28848174
well, if an F-16 loaded with bombs and shit gets jumped by fighters, it would just ditch them and dogfight.
>>28848084
>Brits proved by IR tracking a B2 with a rapier establishment a number of years back.
From what distance?
>>28848152
>>28848174
>But if you have enough smash you can pull 9g even in CATIII with the wingbags
Correction: You CAN, but I dont think the tanks and pylons are rated for that, same as with 2k pounders. I think I recall it being maybe 7 g, 7.5?
Im going off memory from the dash 1. And Im a civillian for the record, take my word with a grain or two of salt.
>>28848180
>uh, the guy who was bitching that the F-35 ruins its stealth if it has to carry external stores
Which is entirely true.
>The implication is that somehow, just because something can minimize a certain advantage, that it's not worth having that advantage in the first place.
No, the implication is that its RCS is shit all over, and its ability to perform certain missions is extremely questionable.
Nobody said 4th generations could do it either.
>>28848195
Sure.
Just saying that pulling 9G with wingtanks isn't really going to happen.
>>28848212
maybe that's not what you're implying, but that's certainly what some people seem to be implying. This idea of "hurr durr what if X happens, doesn't that negate stealth" as if that somehow means stealth is useless.
>>28848212
>Just saying that pulling 9G with wingtanks isn't really going to happen.
No, you are right. Im mis-remembering it. You would definetly over stress them. Would they fail? Again, I dont know.
The small tail A models did have a Cat 2 long long time ago, but those brain cells died a long time ago...
The G limits for specfic configs are found in the -1-2 for the C/D. When carrying bombs, the max G allowed is 5.5 until the bombs are gone, then the G's allowed are dependent on the rest of the external stores/tanks. For example, with no bombs but external 370s, the limits are 6.5 with gas in the tanks and 8.5 without.
The Cat 1/3 switch provides AOA limiting (25 Cat 1 and 16-18 for Cat 3). The Cat 3 loads are more susceptible to departure/out of control, hence the lower AOA limiting. The switch does NOT provide G limiting, so it is up to the pilot to ensure he doesn't over G the jet. The limiter also provides limits in roll and yaw, but that covers a whole page in the -1.
The SMS makes the determination on the Cat based on the stores loaded. Unfortunately, there are times I have to "lie" to the system on training missions, which will make the jet thinks its Cat 3 when its not. In that case, I have the switch in Cat 1 with the stores config light on.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1666
>>28848195
>meanwhile, the F-35 can carry two 2000 lb bombs and six AMRAAMS, two 400 gallon drums, and 2 wing-tip sidewinders at once, and STILL be stealthier than a clean F-16 while doing it.
>>28848249
>http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1666
glad to have someone who actually knows their shit contributing
>>28844531
The helmet (which is kinda important for giving the pilot an idea what the sensors are picking up), yes. If the DAS itself had software problems, I haven't heard of them.
>>28848280
Im just an F-16 nerd who grew up on an airbase. I still watch them take off right over my head 2 to 4 times a week. I now work RIGHT under the runway centerline, about a mile off from the apron.
Oh, and I have been playing falcon 4.0 since the 90s lol.
More from that thread:
As STBY and others have pointed out, the Cat 3 switch setting and FLCS response is not foolproof.
Early birds didn't have it, hence we had a few departures when Joe Baggodonuts rolled too fast at high AoA.
So the Block 15's came out with the nifty switch that limited AoA and some other stuff. We used to use it to emulate a Flogger when on BFM rides with newbies. Sure made one glad to keep the speed up! Gees weren't limited, but that 7-8 degrees AoA was a real player.
Another tidbit, is that you can pull max gees at about 15 deg AoA, so Cat 3 doesn't keep you from pulling 9 gees. Then, the control laws reduce max gee until AoA is 25 degrees or so, at which point it shall be ONE.
Seems to me that the big tanks were not limited by gees. Maybe newer testing found that it wasn't a 'good thing'. OTOH, work out the stress on the wing roots and you'll find that pure gee ain't a problem. Seems that the ordnance keeps the wing from flexing as much as if they weren't there. But wait, there's more! Original birds used a stress sensor at the wing roots to limit gee. So one day we could only get 8.x gees, next day we could get 9.2 or more.
And another war story: In the A-37, we developed cracked spars after a year or so of hauling about more weight than the original T-37 even weighed! The cracks came from taxiing, not pulling gees in flight. They were just inboard of the landing gear. In fact, we could pull more gees if we dropped inboard stores first, then outboard. The eggs out there on wingtips helped to keep the wing from flexing upward, dontchya see?
>>28848301
The helmet had some issues that are largely resolved with the Gen III helmet, but the DAS's associated software had some issues with generating false alarms, thinking that flares were missile launches, etc; still, that's something that plagues most missile warning systems to some extent, and it's better to have false alarms than failing to detect those heat blooms in the first place.
>>28848301
>stitching live IR imaging in all directions, 360 degrees, up and down, with essentially no latency, extremely high resolution to permit the pilot to see ground targets, etc.
>some software issues
meh. They'll get ironed out.
>>28848310
nice. I'm jealous. Falcon BMS is pretty awesome, I've spent some time in it. Phenomenal sim, and sims like that really gives you good insight into how the aircraft work.
yeah, I was mis-remembering that it limited G's and not AoA. Which is obvious now that I think of it.
>>28847819
>not unless they overlap vertically
Couldn't you mount them kinda like a brimstone? But y'know, have two of those triple rack arrangements on a single pylon.
>>28848359
>nice. I'm jealous. Falcon BMS is pretty awesome
Im getting a few grand back in taxes next week, and Im building a gaming rig that will max out Falcon BMS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcMOOOulhME
can someone explain the Cat 1/2/3 thing going on with regard to fighters? All I associate that naming convention with is assisted approach for landing.
>>28848395
Its already a really tight fit, I'm not sure it would be possible.
>>28848249
>You would definetly over stress them. Would they fail? Again, I dont know.
Everything has to have a minimum 1.5 safety factor on top of the design limit load (and 9/7 is just 1.29). So assuming the tanks were in proper condition and subjected to no more loads than the engineers had accounted for in the design process, then the tanks should survive. That said, if the tanks are in less-than-ideal condition for whatever reason (unseen corrosion or fatigue or what have you), or are subjected to unexpected loads for whatever reason, the actual margin could potentially be less.
Either way, it's a code-3 incident and the aircraft must be grounded for inspection afterwards.
>>28848400
I can run it pretty well on my PC, performance of the game is pretty good. Only one monitor though, of course.
>>28848423
I don't even know if other planes have it, but it's just a flight limiter that the F-16 has when it carries different payloads.
Not getting into the detailed specifics, easy way to remember is: CAT I is for air-to-air loadouts, CAT III is with bombs and fuel tanks and shit, and limits the flight parameters
>>28848395
That's what I'm thinking, but the 2 at the top would have to be pretty close together, meaning the pylon at the bottom would have to be fairly slim.
>>28848423
You have 2 different stores categories, CAT-I and CAT-III; there was a CAT-II as well, but that disappeared when F-16As had some issues fixed.
Each category is just a set of configurations for weapons / external payload. If a CAT-III payload is loaded, it just applies some fly-by-wire limiters, as the location of the weapons and the shift in the center of pressure / neutral point makes the jet more susceptible to losing control and departing flight.
>>28848496
>I can run it pretty well on my PC
I can run BMS 4.32 decently, but 4.33 is a slideshow.
A GeForce GTX 980 and a quad core i7 processor should take care of that for me...
>>28848400
This looks sweet and is exactly what I've been looking for in a flightsim!
Here's something in exchange so you get your best bang for buck:
(made and run by our very /g/)
http://www.logicalincrements.com/
>>28848462
>>28848520
I think the real breakthrough will come when they make that half-size missile, or when they make a stealth weapons pod. I'm thinking something fairly big, stick either one big one in the middle, or two medium sized ones under the wings. Design the pods so they don't hurt the RCS too much, design them so they can handle high G forces, and make them carry a couple of AMRAAMS and AIM-9Xs each.
>>28848423
Load categories used to select the fly-by-wire mode on the F-16 specifically (other jets probably have a similar deal). If the F-16 is at or below it's design "dogfighting" weight (that is, up to full internal fuel but with no heavy external loads like bombs or droptanks), it's Cat-I and up to 25 degrees AoA and 9 Gs load factor are permitted. If the F-16 is heavy (i.e. carrying bombs and/or droptanks), it's Cat-III and the limitations go down to 18 degrees AoA symmetric (16 rolling), and a sliding scale of G-limit dependent on the particular loadout (the latter limitation is not FBW-enforced and must be manually determined and obeyed by the meatbag in the pilot's seat).
>>28848551
huh, weird. I run a GTX 660 and an i7 3.4GHz 8 core with 32gb of ram. 4.33 runs pretty well, seems better than 4.32 was.
Either way, a 980 and i7 will be great.
reading The Revolt of the Majors, serious lols
"The Navy took
the lead in the counterattack, and in an informal but devastating response circulated
around the Pentagon, George Spangenberg, the Director of the Naval Air Systems
Commands (NAVAIRSYSCOM) Evaluation Division, and Fred Gloeckler of the
Systems Evaluation Division, wrote a scathing analysis of Spreys work. The Navy
engineers said the lightweight claimed for the VF-XX was unachievable and the
proposed thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading could only be achieved by a larger
airplane. They added it was obvious that Sprey was not an aeronautical engineer and
that:
[Spreys] basic concepts have been considered in detail by the Services
during the formative stages of the F-14 and F-15, have been reviewed by
DDR&E [Deputy Director of Research and Evaluation], and rejected in all
decisions to date...the reconsideration of the concept [VF-XX/F-XX] as a
viable alternative should have been turned down before submission to the
services...
In common with past papers by the same author, this study contains
many fallacious assumptions, half-truths, distortions, and erroneous
extrapolations. Unsubstantiated opinions are presented as facts. Any
rebuttals give the appearance of arguments against the rudimentary virtues
of simplicity, high performance, and low cost. 25
This response, while delivered with feeling, was factual and analytical and effectively
blunted Spreys attempt to forward the DPM. It also showed that Sprey was out of his
class when confronted with knowledgeable aeronautical engineers, but it was a valuable
lesson for Sprey, Boyd, Riccioni, and other Critics do not make arguments in front of
experts."
hahahhaha BTFO
>>28843908
>Real life is not Ace Combat
Don't remind me.
>You will never watch large scale dogfights where ace F-5E's take down SU-35s and F-15s at close range.
>You will never fly anti-ship missions ace-combat style because the ships would kill you from 100mi away
>You will never see massive laser superweapons or giant flying aircraft carriers posted on /k/ as real hardware
>>28848606
IIRC BMS is heavily dependent on your processor, and mine came out of a potato.
>
http://www.logicalincrements.com/
Awesome, thanks.
My sole reason for building a rig is for BMS, and to a lessor extent DCS ( cant wait for the F-14 )
>>28848661
Not a problem
this is pretty useful
https://pcpartpicker.com/parts/partlist/
allows you to build your list, check prices and compatibility between parts
>>28848661
>so many people excited about DCS F/A-18
>muh DCS F-14
>hnnnnnnnnnNNNNNNGNNGGHHHHHHH OH GOD YES
Seriously, the DCS MiG-21 is one of the best sims I've ever played. Aircraft is beautiful, flies wonderful and you really feel like you're flying the thing, especially when you're landing at almost 200 knots just so that your nose is low enough to see the runway and your tires blow out because you touched down too hard
As soon as I heard that the same guys who made the MiG-21 are making the F-14, I've permanently mentally allocated the money to buy that.
>>28848661
Different guy, but I'm personally saving up to upgrade my rig for something like the Rift or Vive, primarily for flight sim'ing. I also need to get around to getting something like an X-55.
>>28848717
Me too. But I hear that the resolution wont be good enough to effectively play with. As in you wont be able to tally ho a bandit nearly as well as someone playing on a monitor because the resolution of the VR stuff isnt high enough yet.
Im still gonna get one of course, just for the immersion factor. We matrix now.
If a matrix style thing were possible I would literally spend every moment of my life playing out TOPGUN, wasting my IRL body away like a heroin addict. Up to and including fucking kelly mcgillis and meg ryan.
>>28848907
I'd be right there with you, brother. Have room for a RIO in that Tomcat?
>>28847075
>All the issues with the F-35 are for the most part a normal aspect of the development process, and as such they are temporary issues that will be resolved soon enough
More or less. If you read Revolt of the Iron Majors like >>28848640 is you'll see the F-15/16 had very similar issues in their development cycle which Sprey and co. desperately latched onto in order to get Congress to cancel them and buy a gorillion F-20s instead.
>>28847476
I think that's more a result of the F-35 being essentially held under a microscope in much the same way the V-22 was.
>>28848400
So if I want to play BMS 4.33, I need Falcon 4.0 right?
>>28848959
Yeah honestly I really want to play as a RIO too some. I guess I want be a switch top/bottom lol.
No but it will be really cool to be a back seater in a flight sim. Considering that hardest thing about playing a computer flight sim is maintaining situational awareness, a guy in back will be super useful.
>Two bogeys 10 O'clock low, go get em mav, time for some of that pilot shit.
>>28849016
But the F-20 was an overbuilt plane that RUINED everything that was good about the F-5.
>>28848716
>landing at almost 200 knots just so that your nose is low enough to see the runway
>needing to see the runway
Taildragger pilot here, HTFU.
>>28843656
Because muh amraams
>>28849016
it's true. Sprey, Boyd, and that chickenshit Riccioni had the same issues with the F-15 as they do with the F-35
>it's too big
>it's too heavy
>it's too complicated
>it's too expensive
>too many avionics and sensors
years later, the F-15 is the best a2a fighter in the world for decades, and was only equaled by other countries decades later.
So I think it's safe to say that if Sprey hates something that much, it's gonna be awesome.
>>28849080
yeah, you just need the Falcon 4 .exe to point the installer to. Just torrent it or some shit, it's hard to find a retail version still available.
>>28849095
lol landing the MiG-21 feels like a crash landing every time. You kinda point it at the runway, set your angle so the runway is just above your dashboard, and then set the throttle so you maintain the glide slope. Except at 200 knots, you're not so much gliding as you are flying on a gentle collision course with the ground.
>>28849080
Well, no. You just need a copy of the game. Where you find that copy, is up to you. Hint hint.
Do NOT mention that you torrented the game on the forums though, or you will get insta B&.
BMS is in a weird situation, and they cant jepordise it by knowingly allowing people to pirate the game. BMS "acquired" the source code to Falcon 4.0, and the owner of the code is sorta looking the other way right now.
They had a scary knock on the door a few years ago by the people who currently own the rights to Falcon 4.0 due to people trying to bend the rules further.
>>28849091
good god, he's so autistic. Someone actually tries to follow his advice and take the small and agile F-5 and modernize it, and he still hates it.
ffs someone should draw up a proposal with the specs of the F-86 saber and see what he thinks. 5 bucks says he would love it and recommend it as a modern a2a fighter. The poor bastard is stuck in the 50's man.
>>28849128
>>28849132
Cheers buds.
I really do like how these aircraft threads have turned out now. You wouldn't recognise it three or four years ago.
>>28849132
>>28849080
You just need to point the BMS installer at a copy of the proper Falcon 4.0 game CD. I forget exactly which one. There is multiple versions on piratebay, youll figure out which one.
Just mount the iso on a virtual drive and point the BMS installer to that, and you are good. Once again, big no no to admit that on the BMS forum.
>>28849154
Remember he wanted to A-10 to only have the BRRRT, he thought mavericks and any kind of advanced avionics were complete wastes of money. He then tried to claim it was the lynchpin of the Gulf War even though the vast majority of it's kills were scored with mavericks.
>>28849207
Meant for >>28849146
>>28849207
yeah because he's a tard.
Nowadays he loves the F-16 and basically takes credit for it, when originally he hated it because it had a radar and fbw and advanced avionics and sparrows etc etc.
Watch, in 10 years he'll be saying his light weight fighter shit was responsible for the F-35, and he'll be calling the next F-XX program fighter a turkey
>>28849132
>>28849171
*cough*
If were looks getting Falcon 4.0 boot disk, would I want to third or fourth rendition, or does it not matter?
>>28849260
*if I were
>>28849146
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BDgQwlfHII
Half the F-20's promotional material is devoted to bragging about how advanced the radar was.
>>28849300
God, what a fucking depressing opening.
>>28848907
I think it'll be fine - they have a 2160x1200 resolution, and in my experience with FPV quad racing, you naturally adapt to the displays, kind of like how your eyes thought that the images on old CRT displays looked fine.
>>28849244
Assuming he's alive 10 years from now; he's 79 years old at the moment. Then again, he'll probably still do RT interviews from his hospital bed.
>>28849260
I downloaded two versions of the iso, and only one of them allows me to install BMS with it.
I have one copy that is " falcon_4.0_eng.iso " , and Im almost positive that is the one I use to install BMS with.
But the other copy of falcon I have the file name folder is Falcon 4.0 Allied Force ( PC - F16 Flight Sim ) with the Falcon 4.0 iso in it.
Im pretty sure I got them both off piratebay.
>>28849300
I always thought the F-5 and F-20 were sexy planes. I mean, if the F-16 hadn't been the amazing fighter it was, the F-20 could have filled that role and been amazing
>>28849331
true. I'm almost sad he'll be dead before he has to see the F-35 become a stunning success, just like the F-15 and F-16
>>28848196
Its pretty easy to track anything when you know its flight plan :^)
>>28849345
>>28849260
https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/9379740/Falcon_4.0___BMS_V6_update_All_in_one_ready_to_install_ENG
This one claims to have the correct iso for the BMS install, and even comes with the BMS installer, but just go to the BMS website and download either 4.32 or 4.33 if your rig can handle it.
>>28849345
>>28849387
Thanks
I'm also in the market for a new pc anyway.
/k/ BMS group when?
This F-22 thread almost instantly became a F-35 thread.
>we're buying 404 of these glitched out things
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-budget-lockheed-fighter-idUSKCN0VF01F
It's like poetry.
>>28849421
Im acetonewarthog on the BMS forum, playing 4.32, but I wont be able to run 4.33 for about a month. Feel free to hit me up on there, Ive been playing for like 3 years.
>>28849451
>It's like poetry.
It is, but probably not in the way you think.
>>28849473
>>28849421
>>28849331
Also check this video out of a virtual squadron doing DACT with F-5s in 4.32.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko_en_y4D0o
This is, hands down, the best and most realistic use of radio comms I have ever seen.
>>28849331
>>28849331
>I think it'll be fine - they have a 2160x1200 resolution, and in my experience with FPV quad racing, you naturally adapt to the displays, kind of like how your eyes thought that the images on old CRT displays looked fine.
I hope you are right. Im gonna at least try it out with BMS, and if it doenst work out I can always return it or re sell it.
Then again I could still use it for iRacing.
>>28849500
awesome vid, wish it didn't have the music added.
>>28849473
Sure, I'll try to remember to hit you up when I'll grab my new pc in a month or so.
If anything I'll make a post on /k/ about it.
>>28849500
Nice.
>>28845571
Why didn't they just make the F35 as stealthy as the F22?
>>28849570
I have a few friends who are tech early adopters, so I intend to try them out before I buy, and I recommend you do as well (just in case there are problems you don't expect, like if they don't fit well, or your eyes / brain can't ignore certain issues with the screens, etc).
I'll probably only be upgrading VR headset once every 2 or 3 years, so I'm going to be spending most of this year watching the Vive, seeing how Oculus responds (will they lower their price, or release a slightly upgraded Rift?) as well as what Samsung, Apple (lol), Google, etc are working on.
HTC and Facebook are big companies, but Samsung, Apple and Google are bigger and can afford to produce hardware at a loss to take a bigger slice of the market, not to mention Samsung and Apple have a lot of experience in mobile screen displays.
>>28849758
See: >>28846316
>>28849758
eh, it has a more advanced stealth skin that is more durable.
And I doubt the exact RCS figures are publically available anyways. The F-35 is probably "close enough" stealth capability that it will be indistinguishable.
>>28847476
>R&D phase rushed
>long LRIP process
You can't have your cake and eat it too
>>28847476
>and they jumped a lot of steps to get a product out the door
But there is no product. It's not complete. It's not even operational.
>>28850057
>But there is no product. It's not complete. It's not even operational.
Uh, it can fly and fire live ordinance already.
Im gonna go ahead and say its likely already far more lethal than an F-16.
>>28850153
Alright, then send it to Syria. Why not?
>>28850166
Why should you?
You don't gain very much over the current deployed aircraft.
>>28850208
Oh? I thought it was far more lethal.
>>28850166
>no product. not complete. not operational
>oh yeah, well if I'm wrong why don't they mass-deploy them in a combat zone????
idiot. it's not a binary "totally fake prototype non-functioning shitbag" or "fully operational war machine".
>>28850215
when you're just dropping a couple of bombs a day on some mud huts and trucks, you don't need a brand-new stealth fighter that is still in early stages of upgrades/updates.
>>28850057
But it has reached initial OPERATIONAL capability. To say it isn't operational is just plain wrong. It's right there in the name.
>>28850166
Because it is better to use these guys as the core of the force, to figure out best usage of the F-35. As more are delivered, this initial cadre can be sent elsewhere, to train up the new squadrons. In this way, the peculiarities of the aircraft's usage is more quickly hammered out and disseminated far more quickly than otherwise. Seeing as there is no urgent need for them over Syria, there's no reason to use them. If we somehow managed to get into a shooting war with Russia or China, you'd probably see them hustled to the front.
>>28850215
Oh it is.
But you don't need that level of lethality for durks. Like you don't put ketchup on rare steak. Because that's a waste of good steak.
>>28843674
B8 harder nigga
>>28850255
>eating raw meat
medium objectively best. Not as juicy, but the flavor is cooked more into the meat, making it an overall more enjoyable experience. If you absolutely need the juiciness, medium rare, but that's it.
>>28850326
>he doesn't rip and tear his kills whilst they're still hot
>he doesn't bathe in the blood
your loss pal
>>28844313
>If that's not a concern (ie, when we're bombing snackbars),
Why not just use a cheaper plane for that?
>>28850539
>I've had numerous people on my YouTube videos comment that the F-35 isn't "combat proven" like the F-22 and Typhoon and Rafale
>have apparently tested their stealth, high maneuverability, supercruise and advanced sensors and EW kit
>proven it by dropping bombs on snackbars with AKs.
It be neat to take that round out of their ammunition, although they'd probably then complain and ask why it hasn't destroyed ISIS yet.
>>28850539
Because designing the entire military around COIN ops would be incredibly short-sighted.
>>28850696
Why not just have the F-35 and a cheaper model alongside one another?
Surely the cost savings from using a cheap COIN plane balance the losses from operating more types to some degree? (While also leaving F-35s free to do important things while the COIN planes are in the desert)
>>28845669
>reduced RCS hardpoint pod
So a low-observable shell covering external weapons hardpoints that's discarded in mid-air prior to using said weapons? [spoiler]I wondered if that would work.[/spoiler]
>>28850776
Hi, my name is General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper. I heard you wanted a cheap aircraft to operate alongside the F-35? I would like to apply for this position. I believe you'll find my skillset fits your needs quite well. Here's a copy of my resume.....oh wait, I already have that job! Silly me! Sorry to bug you.
>>28850851
ROBOTS GET OUT
THIS IS A HUMAN THREAD
>>28850821
It'd work and we might see them in the future, but probably not until the F-35 also gets a variable cycle engine to counter the drag induced by how big these pods are.
>>28850851
>Hey! We don't serve your kind here!
>>28850776
see
>>28850851
that's pretty much it. For dropping the occasional explosive on a hajis head, a drone with some missiles is more than enough.
>>28850821
That's one idea. Another is essentially a big storage bin that opens up like an internal bay.
>>28850909
Could similar hardpoint covers be utilized on the F-22? I realize it has less need, but still.
>>28850965
Definitely; any aircraft could use them, but you just have to keep in mind that they'd induce a lot of drag.
Also, depending on how they're designed exactly, they could be fairly costly. So for example, if they're meant to be used universally across any jet, they'd be packing their own compressor, actuator, perhaps also a battery pack, etc to actuate doors, which could be costly. If they're designed just for the F-22 / F-35 though (which supply pneumatic pressure), you can just have a purely mechanical system, or something that just blows off a cover one-time to allow the missile or bomb to launch / eject, before blowing itself off the hardpoint.
>>28851138
I was thinking mainly for F-22/F-35, to expand their payload while mitigating RCS increases.
>>28844405
Right, just like those 2,000 PAK FAs you'll have by 2020?
>>28844244
>checking a checking post with a checking post.
>>28849772
I've got hopes for the StarVR set.
>>28850776
>>28851296
It'll be impressive, although I'm not sure how I'm gonna run what's effectively a 4K display at a high enough FPS - I'm just going to have to leave space for a second [insert a $400 USD GPU here] later down the line, or try and stick to a socket set that's not changing in the next ~12 months
>>28850851
Oh hey, friend? Having problems with the ole CPU?
Just hit Ctrl+Alt+F4
>>28843656
>Why did we build such a piece of shit?
Because USAF was unable to predict changes in it's requirements in early 90's.
>>28843674
Depends on size of bombs. Usually I'd assume it would have 2 JDAM's, 2 AMRAAM's and 2 sidewinders on mission to hostile airspace with functional air defense.
>>28843671
>This is what the F-35 is for
BS, this is what F16s A10s and F18s are for...F35 is for fatteing up Lochgreed Martin's pocket.
>>28843703
Your post actually managed to be even more retarded than your picture, congrats!
>>28854226
There was a joke.
And it went over your head.
>>28844388
explain me where
Even the A-10 or any given airplane on paper was able to take the skies with a 4 MER and 24 Mk82 but then
>what is clearance?
>what is safety?
It will be like the Tomcat
>on paper 4x GBU-24
>reality 2x GBU-24 staggered in the tunnel pallets and nothing next to them or possibly an MK-82 sized and dumb bomb
>>28843656
>>28856979
>explain me where
The A2G pylon that has more than enough room, probably.
>what is clearance?
>what is safety?
Probably things Aeronautics engineers know better than you
>>28857553
>Probably things Aeronautics engineers know better than you
Like 8x Phoenix and the inability to land on carrier cause gross weight will nuke the airframe?
The same ones of let's load this A-7E with two Sidewinders even if the one mounted on starboard pylon will probably fry the LANA pod lenses,eh but who cares we can load it cause we are engineers
Again their paper is different when you to physically put things there and safely launch/jettison without them touching other stuff mounted next to it.
Should have used a better example
Britbong Phantoms with gunpod
Could not mount Sparrow/Skyflash missiles cause flame and gun fumes will damage them
F-4 Phantom any given variant with 600 gallon tank no Sparrow missiles in front of it cause fins and exhaust will damage it.Clear to carry Sparrow if F-15 style fuel tank is mounted cause there is more clearance thus safety
Yeah engineers
>>28858081
And this is why the F-35 isn't getting the 6 AMRAAM loadout until Block 3F is finished, since they're specifically looking for ways to mount the extra 2 missiles on the bomb pylons safely.
>>28858176
Not him but why in God's name wouldn't they do this BEFORE approving the design?
>>28858199
Part of the design requirements were easy maintenance and upgrades, so changes are easier as new weapons/avionics come about. 6 AMRAAMs would be nice, but it's low priority compared to A2G setup with F-22s already flying around.
>>28858283
I would argue the F-35 is in many ways a superior A2A platform than the F-22 is right now.
>>28858199
Because fitting a 2000 lb class bomb was the priority, not devising a dual pneumatic armature system to launch missiles from.
But it's getting both, so what's the problem?
>>28858345
Yeah, but the Half-lengthers are being designed without having to fuck with the weapons bays, too. So that's a 12-missile truck on full-internal.
