Why is this allowed?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
>Pierre Sprey criticize F-35 and calls it a lemon
>"hahahaha that's so true hahaha this guy knows his shit hahaha F-35 a shit XD"
>Pierre Sprey criticize Eurofighter Typhoon and calls it a lemon
>"HURRR WHAT THE FUCK IS HE SAYING? WHAT A STUPID IGNORANT ASSHOLE!! TYPHOON IS LIKE FLAWLESS!!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQSs2kN2GpQ
>>29331432
who are you quoting?
>>29331432
Both the F-35 and EF is decent for their intended role.
Pierre Sprey is a retard.
Both programmes are poorly managed and delayed/overpriced.
>>29331455
see, this is all there needs to be said. thank you anon
>>29331455
Thanks anon
mods, please sticky this
It's probably because the Typhoon is a more traditional-looking aircraft, while F-35 is "The Future".
sprey letting out the secret that the west isn't actually bombing ISIS
>RT
P R O O F S
P
R
O
O
F
S
>>29331432
you are the biggest retard for watching RT
>>29331432
Because penor spritz is a saltly old man who probably regularly grumbles the phrase "back in my day". He deserves the same amount of recognition as Larry Vickers.
>Pierre Sprey
>RT
>>29331432
>[The Eurofighter Typhoon] has never been a very good airplane. It is rather large, very expensive. Of course we build more expensive airplanes to say the least. But it is relatively unmaneuverable, far too complex for its missions, hard to maintain, and very hard to get very many sorties per week out of it because of the complexity. But that is no different than most of the airplanes being built today, and we are doing worse with the F-35.
>>29332611
>Typhoon
>Relatively unmaneuverable
ex-fucking-cuse me
>>29331432
>Pierre Sprey criticize F-35 and calls it a lemon
>"hahahaha that's so true hahaha this guy knows his shit hahaha F-35 a shit XD"
He's right
>Pierre Sprey criticize Eurofighter Typhoon and calls it a lemon
>"HURRR WHAT THE FUCK IS HE SAYING? WHAT A STUPID IGNORANT ASSHOLE!! TYPHOON IS LIKE FLAWLESS!!"
He's not right
>Americans are the smartest people on the globe
>>29332781
>>29332611
Relatively unmaneuverable to what? Fuck is he on about?
>>29331432
>>29332611
I've seen this video before, and it is was first sold me on Pierre Sprey being an idiot. The F-35 is an easy target now because of the delays and such, but the Eurofighter has been around for a bit now and it has established a reputation as an outstanding aircraft. Time will tell how it will fare against the F-35's software is finished and they are put against each other in war-games, but it isn't a bad aircraft by stretch of the imagination.
>>29331432
>Quoting Russia Today
>"Why is this allowed?"
Same way you're allowed to be a tremendous faggot. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
>>29331455
Sticky this and make it a /k/ specific banner.
>>29331455
Thanks anon. You da best.
>>29333477
>Relatively unmaneuverable to what?
The YF-16, the only jet fighter he ever approved of.
>>29331432
Sprey is doing what he does - his role these days is a critic, he's supposed to be critical. It's good to see he's doing it even handedly.
And of course the shills are doing what they do just the same - defending Lockheed Martin who can absolutely do no wrong.
The interesting part of this particular post is that it offers them the bone of getting his criticisms of the EF in if they accept him, but no, it's not worth having to admit that the F-35 is less than 100% perfect in every way.
>>29333908
Nobody here is sucking LM's dick. They are very clearly mismanaging the project. Time delays are a usual part of that industry, but even then it's getting fucking ridiculous.
The PRODUCT itself is fine. All the hiccups and issues you get shoved in your face by interested media is nothing new to the industry. You are developing the most sophisticated machines on the planet, there WILL be hangups.
Learn the difference between criticizing the product and criticizing the way people are producing it, that is the key.
>>29333608
Someone actually saved my post. Now I feel a bit better about myself.
>>29331455
>is decent
Not hating on the F-35, but for the amount that's been paid for that program, I would like to think that we're getting something that's more than "decent".
>>29333908
>defending Lockheed Martin who can absolutely do no wrong.
>Why won't you just accept my ridiculous claims about the F-35 as fact?
I can point out areas of the JSF program that I think could have been done better but so many of the arguments against the F-35 are just dumb.
>Every plane needs to be just as maneuverable as the F-16!
>Every plane need to be just as fast as the F-22!
>Every plane needs to have the same range as an F-111!
>If you put a single missile on wings the air-frame suddenly will have the same RCS as a hornet!
>Literally any argument revolving around the gun not having enough ammo.
>>29334103
>It needs to be a magical miracle plane otherwise it isn't good enough
>>29331455
thanks based anon
>>29334107
>Every plane needs to be just as maneuverable as the F-16!
if it's going to replace the F-16, it'd be nice.
>Every plane need to be just as fast as the F-22!
if it's going to replace the F-22, it'd be nice.
>Every plane needs to have the same range as an F-111!
if it's going to replace the F-111 it'd be nice.
>If you put a single missile on wings the air-frame suddenly will have the same RCS as a hornet!
if you're going to replace the hornet, it'd be nice.
now, i'm not saying it is replacing everything there, or even saying that the F-35 is a bad plane, i just resent when things are replaced by inferior models. (which again, is only the case if it's actually replacing those aircraft entirely. when you replace things with two different models, and combined they both outperform it, that's often reasonable.)
>>29333960
Except how do you define the product here?
Is it today's F-35, that has only a small subset of its planned capabilities? Is that product really just fine the way it is, today? Frankly it seems that with todays capabilities it's a pretty poor plane for the roles it is supposed to take over.
Is the product actually the plane as we expect it to work in 8 years or 10 years or whenever block 4 is actually real? Because that's clearly a better plane (and the one the cheerleaders always seem to be talking about in terms of capabilities) but it's not something that exists today. It can't be evaluated today, it doesn't exist today. That's what's called vaporware.
>>29334116
More than decent = magical miracle plane?
>>29334103
As stated, Its overpriced but it still works for its intended role. Or atleast it does so for the USAF/USN/USMC. Not sure about how it will work out for smaller air forces.
>>29334139
>It's not good enough!
[Later]
>Good enough isn't good enough!
>>29334131
>i just resent when things are replaced by inferior models.
None of the aircraft the F-35 is replacing are superior to it.
The F-16 clean is more manouverable, which is touted around a lot, but its meaningless considering all thats good for is airshows. With combat load it becomes fairly equal despite air warfare moving away from turning battles and therefore the focus of capability.
>>29331432
Eurofighter... relatively unmaneuverable...
Holy fuck Sprey... get a grip.
Now he is also designer of F-15... wasn't that the very reason they ended up with F-16 in first place. Shit that guy got out of Pentagon in mid 80's to focus on playing jazz.
>>29331455
>Both programmes are poorly managed and delayed/overpriced.
This. In case of Eurofighter extra decade in development is mostly due to end of Cold War and reduced defense budgets since then.
>>29334131
>i just resent when things are replaced by inferior models
Then there is absolutely nothing to worry about because each version of the F-35 is much, much better than what it is scheduled to replace.
American fighters almost bad as the Chinese ones.
>>29334166
Woah hold the fuck up there bucko. The F-18 is single greatest airframe ever crafted by human hands.
>>29334200
if the PAK-FA is actually that size relative to the F-22 then I think I'm in love. That's so cute.
>>29334200
>states no source
>shitty memes intended for slavs
>shitposts
>cant spell
When will vatniks learn.
>>29334222
PAK-FA's tiny.
I think they thought that if they made the airframe smaller the RCS wouldn't be so horrific
>>29334240
The Su-30 is on the other hand massive.
>>29334251
But in terms of looks and in some sectors of coolness, the MiG-21 is infinitely cooler than the F-22.
Plus in the movie, you get like 11 billion MiG-21s for the hero's F-14 to shoot down. Try doing that with an F-22.
>>29334264
>>29334273
Don't think because you deleted your post we won't notice your silly mistake, anon
man the fuck up
>>29334264
>the MiG-21 is infinitely cooler than the MiG-21.
kek
>>29334278
I was actually initially going to reply to myself correcting it, then I remembered 4chanX means deleting a post doesn't reload the page. It was laziness (+care for convenience of the reader), not cowardice.
I was also going to compare my mistake to Pierre's apparent dislike for the F-20 (another silly mistake, you see!)
>>29334273
>He actually deletes his fuckups
>>29334222
PakFA and F-22 are roughly the same size.
J-20 and Su-27/30 are noticeably larger.
>>29334279
Given the number of shitty export models while ruskis kept the good stuff, it's not wrong.
>>29334301
For someone joining the thread, it's more convenient to see the right thing than stop and go "wait what the hell?" then see a correction below, plus (if I understand right) it should remove 1 from the bump limit to delete it.
Although obviously that gain is gone now that it's generated multiple replies.
>>29333960
>Time delays are a usual part of that industry, but even then it's getting fucking ridiculous.
The F-35 has been schedule since at least 2012.
>>29334240
This image is misleading because the planes are at different angles.
The nose/cockpit area of the Flanker is much larger but the bodies and wings are the same size.
>>29334222
> if the PAK-FA is actually that size relative to the F-22 then I think I'm in love
No, the PAK-FA is a bit longer compare to F-22. But F-22 is also fat [SPOILER]like everything American[/SPOILER]
F-15 and Su-27 have almost the same size as well.
>>29333633
>During more or less a decade of service with the Italian Air Force, the F-16 has been extensively used to train Typhoon pilots in WVR engagements. According to the Italian pilots, the F-16 matches the F-2000 under 10,000 feet. But above FL100 the Typhoon becomes quite difficult to beat since its superior aerodynamics give the Eurofighter can out maneuver the Viper at every engagement.
http://theaviationist.com/2012/12/10/viper-dogfight/
seems to me like the Typhoon is pretty damn maneuverable.
>>29334316
Im just fucking with you. I understand that you would correct that.
>>29334431
And that's without the Aerodynamic Modification Kit
>>29334446
Amazing!
>>29334446
left kettle on... on the ISS?
He talks and moves like an animatronic. Seems to have around the same intellect remaining too.
>>29334446
>climbs like a homesick angel
>>29335836
He's just an old nobody putting on an act when left wing media sources bring him on as a "expert"
But EF has all kinds of useless junk like a radar
>‘Eurofighter too big, bulky for combat missions against ISIS’
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-studying-future-attack-aircraft-options-422936/
>Service officials admit that despite being an ideal close air support platform in high-end conflict with Russia, the long-delayed A-10 replacement, the Lockheed Martin F-35, will be too expensive to operate in the Warthog’s day-to-day role.
It isn't that controversial. EF isn't cheap. It is a twin engine high performance shit.
>>29335954
F-35 won't be eventually cheaper to operate than the A-10?
>>29336060
F-35 doesn't have the same level of supply chain as the A-10 has.
>>29336245
Cut myself off,
the A-10 has yet. A-10 has been around for decades f-35 is basically brand new. A-10 and other older aircraft have plenty of skilled support persons and spare parts.
>>29336060
AHAHAAHAHA! Holy fuck, thanks for the laughs anon
>>29336245
You're right, the A-10 goes out and operates in harsh deserts to strike real targets with maintainers stuck at home being introduced to the new fighter program. The F-35 might as well be targeting its own factory when it gets tested.
>>29334446
My dick did a pretty good recreation of that after watching it.
>>29334446
>you will never pilot a Typhoon
why even live?
>>29333908
>Sprey is doing what he does - his role these days is a critic, he's supposed to be critical. It's good to see he's doing it even handedly.
He's always been a critic, in the most literal definition of the term. Someone who criticizes but adds nothing of value to the discussion.
He has zero real experience despite his claims. He straight up lies about his part in the F-16 and A-10 development, and has even changed his tune about the F-16, which the Air Force made bigger, more high-tech, and a multi-role all-weather compared to the fair-weather dogfighter the YF-16 was when it came time to talk shit about something newer.
Motherfucker hasn't even been working in aviation for 30 years, he's been a record producer.
>>29331450
Hello newfriend, welcome to 4chan.
>>29336836
No lad, if you don't know that's a meme, you are the newfriend.
But is that RAF Coningsby?
>>29331432
Maybe because the F-35 is an absolute piece of shit and looks like one giant scam? On surface value, it appears governments have fleeced billions from taxpayers and handed it over to their friends at Lockheed.
>Australia's next-generation jet fighter has been labelled the "jackass of all trades and masterful of none".
>Independent military and policy think tank Air Power Australia is dismissive of the plan to acquire 72 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighters from the United States.
>"Blue sky marketing" was overshadowing major problems with the aircraft, its head Peter Goon told a Canberra hearing of a Senate inquiry investigating the acquisition on Tuesday.
>"It has all the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme," he said.
>"When the product fails recruit as many clients as you can, promote the product as loudly as you can, keep the cash flowing for as long as the market remains blind to its failure."
>>29338344
>Air Power Australia
Someone should ask Pierre Sprey if this thing >>29330578 is a lightweight and simple enough fighter for him.
>>29338344
Hi Pierre, did the nice ladies at the home let you on the internet again?
>No source
>Implying their opinion is worth jack shit, just like POGO or War is Boring
>Real military personnel and aviation engineers ignored in favor of "circular experts" in the same mold as Sprey, Boyd, et al.
0/10, see me after class.
>>29336863
Royal Air Force Station Waddington.
>>29331432
Has Sprey ever criticized anything Russian? I'd like to see slavboos finally start to realize he's always been full of shit like the yuros are realizing now.
>>29338419
>dissing pogo
They work for congress and offer a good look at things with citation.
http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2016/pentagon-tester-warns-against-f-35.html
for example
>>29333908
how much do you get paid by Moscow to shitpost?
>>29338658
Well spotted.
Nuke moscow
>>29338724
POGO published a report by Sprey in two thousand fucking seven that literally says the M48A5 is a better tank than the M1A2. They are literally a bunch of dipshits.
>>29331432
>TYPHOON IS LIKE FLAWLESS!!
this is correct.
>>29338789
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the M48A5 could very well be the better tank? Sure, the Abrams would win 1 vs 1 but the M48A5 is cheaper so you can afford more armor.
>>29339272
>we Imperial Japan now
>>29339272
>>29339272
It's not like there's a shortage of Abrams. And more tanks just means a larger logistical footprint and more crews you have to train.
>>29339451
And more inferior tanks mean a lot more dead soldiers.
>>29339467
If the tank is cheap enough, then you can give every soldier a tank. Seems like the ideal system to me.
>>29339490
>takes 4 to run
>every soldier a tank
>>29339536
So 1 tank for every 4 soldiers. Sounds great.
>>29339546
Sounds like a good way of invalidating any dubious cost advantage you could have had in the first place.
>>29339564
It also seems like a great way to guarantee victory and minimize casualties at the same time.
>>29339602
>It also seems like a great way to guarantee victory and minimize casualties at the same time.
>Thinks tanks are immune to infantry infiltration
>>29334412
F-15 is actually considerably smaller, it's visible from that picture.
Su-27 is 1.5 meters longer and wider, it weighs 3 tons more empty and carries 3 tons more fuel.
>>29340920
>>29334412
>>29334222
A video to help visual size difference.
>>29336245
You are right but not in the way that you think.
The A-10 supply chain is broken. Fairchild isn't a company anymore, all the subcontractors that make parts for A-10 are either out of business, or have moved to making parts for different planes.
Every single A-10 replacement part has to be pulled out of another A-10, or manufactured at great expense and in small quantities by contractors. The only reason the A-10 fleet has lasted "this long" is because they built 700 of the things to smash Soviet Motor-Rifle Divisions in Germany, and now only 300 or so are still flying.
The F-35 supply chain is actually in production, every single F-35 part has a contractor and supply mass producing that part, so you can actually get replacement parts easily.
The same thing is about to happen with the F-15 and F-18 A-D. Boeing is shutting down Eagle and Hornet production lines, leaving only the Super-hornet line open. Parts for F-15's and F-18's will no longer be made very soon. However, the supply situation for them will be easier, since F-15 shares engines with F-16, and F-18 shares engine with Gripen and KAI T-50. Both engine supply chains will remain open long into the future.
>>29341007
The obvious solution is just to bite the bullet and put out a request for proposal for a company to produce more A-10's. Restart the supply line under a new company. Update the avionics a bit while retaining the fundamental strengths of the platform. It has been shown that planes like the F-35 and Typhoon are simply too expensive to operate continuously over long periods of conflict and you simply don't need those jets to bomb places in Iraq.
>>29338344
Just going trough F-35 "failure" checklist.
Pierre Sprey, nope.
David Axe, nope.
Carlo Kopp, check.
Peter Goon, check.
>>29341099
Fucking what? The F-35 is a better plane than the A-10 in every way, and to "modernize" it with completely new production would be a plane significantly more expensive and without the economy of scale the F-35 gains.
>>29338789
Pic related is the relevant part of that report and that is pretty much spot on regardless of other stupidity and mistakes in that report.
>>29339490
>If the tank is cheap enough, then you can give every soldier a tank. Seems like the ideal system to me.
That is retarded as fuck. Tanks need infantry support.
>>29341099
A-10 is dead meat in contested airspace. Pic related does 99% of what A-10 does against illiterate goat fuckers without effective air defense much cheaper and without communications issues that comes with the other better than A-10 alternative, drones.
>>29341359
>Childish oversimplification written by a record producer simply parroting his own ignorant beliefs about cost and performance no matter how often he gets proven wrong by experts and reality
>>29334131
It's supposed to complement the F-22, not replace it. The Strike Eagle replaces the F-111 and it's not going anywhere.
>>29341413
Are you implying that unit cost and return of investment are irrelevant? Maybe everything military uses should be gold plated if it doesn't affect performance, since more expensive is always better and has no whatsoever effect on public spending.
Virginia-class SSN's are total waste of money because they are cheaper alternative to Pier Wolfs.
nice radar cross-section ya have there boys
>>29342044
>muh stealth
>>29341398
In COIN, the only thing those are good for, why would drones have communication issues?
>>29339536
tanks do not take "4 to run"
>>29341099
The a-10 is not cheap to operate either
>>29341693
>why don't we coat everything in gold
That's objectively retarded and has no benefits, that's why.
If its expensive and better, then the fact that its more expensive is kind of moot. Anyway, bulding for the pasts wars is just pants on head retarded in every single way.
If they're going to produce new equipment, it might as well be state of the art.
>>29341693
>an hour of filter cleaning every two hours
Do you think that is even remotely true?
Maybe it had some truth to it in early development. Just like Sprey probably thinks that in TYOOL you can't fly an F-35 trough rain.
>>29334103
It carries 2000 lbs more than the A-10 and has twice the range of the f-16, and will be extremely difficult to target with air to air missiles. Its a good plane
>>29343094
>If its expensive and better, then the fact that its more expensive is kind of moot. Anyway, bulding for the pasts wars is just pants on head retarded in every single way.
>If they're going to produce new equipment, it might as well be state of the art.
>Quantity has a quality of its own
Is not entirely bullshit you know. Of course the quality can't be too bad. Can't really fly biplanes against jet fighters..
>>29341398
>A-10 is dead meat in contested airspace
In contested airspace, the A-10 can operate with fighter escort. In uncontested airspace (you know 99.999% of current battlefields) the A-10 can operate on its own much more cheaply than a fighter jet.
I'm not saying that you don't need fighter jets. I'm saying that they're situational and too expensive to operate in a sustained conflict. You use the fighter jets to destroy then enemy air force (if there is an enemy air force) and then the A-10 can do the rest on its own.
>>29343122
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester's_laws
Pic related simple theoretician model. If you are outnumbered two to one then you need to have four times more firepower to make it a draw.
Killing four enemy tanks in the time it takes them to kill one of yours requires quite a bit of technological edge.
>>29343126
Protip: in contested airspace they would just use another multirole like they have in the past.
>>29343077
Driver, gunner, TC, loader. Maybe drop that last one if you have an auto system.
>>29343122
And the US can afford to outbuild Russia and China in both quantity and quality.
>>29343126
Except the F-35 can carry more drastically further and faster and is useful in all phases of the campaign without needing an escort. The A-10 was outdated shortly after it entered service.
>>29331432
> be old guy who only makes money when people pay attention to him
> say shit that makes people pay attention
You are all very stupid people.
>>29343144
It's not quite applicable to how modern wars are fought. It's based on the assumption of Napoleonic and WWI era tactics that assumes everything is a meeting engagement. Incidentally it works best in determining how small scale infantry engagements work, where whichever side pumps out the most lead tends to win.
>>29343220
you really don't know what you're talking about. don't bother commenting again.
>>29343220
Still it is useful because most laymen would assume that a big advantage in killing power can easily make up the difference in numbers.
It isn't just a question of lead. Havings lots of bodies to throw at the problem is useful. An assault rifle might be more effective than 4 bolters. But losing one or two riflemen doesn't shut you down.
>>29343179
>Except the F-35 can carry more drastically further and faster and is useful in all phases of the campaign without needing an escort.
At 100 times the cost per trip. Also, the A-10 can get "closer to the action" because unlike fighter jets, the A-10 can take-off from short, dirty, unkempt runways in the middle of nowhere with no problems.
>>29343276
>i don't know assumptions of Lanchester model the post
>>29343048
There is thing called lag when you operate aircraft from other side of the world in air conditioned office, especially if everything is encrypted heavily.
>>29343094
>That's objectively retarded and has no benefits, that's why.
Surem that was reductio ad absurdum, but if it increases cost... that usually increases profits for manufacturer.
>If its expensive and better, then the fact that its more expensive is kind of moot.
So cost is still completely irrelevant factor in procurement.
>Anyway, bulding for the pasts wars is just pants on head retarded in every single way.
So, all combat and operational experience should be discarded when designing new gear.
>If they're going to produce new equipment, it might as well be state of the art.
What is alternative to expensive state of art weapon system is significantly cheaper system that is still good enough for the job.
>>29343105
>Do you think that is even remotely true?
I'm fairly certain that they had to replace airfilters for engines every couple hours. Probably takes few minutes to swap filter, I wouldn't be surprised cleaning said filter would take hour.
>>29343126
>In contested airspace, the A-10 can operate with fighter escort.
Main threat isn't enemy fighters, but SAM's. In Gulf War A-10's operated briefly over well supplied Iraqi republican guards, ones that actually had reasonable amounts of MANPADS with 'em. After they started getting shot down they used F-16's.
>In uncontested airspace (you know 99.999% of current battlefields) the A-10 can operate on its own much more cheaply than a fighter jet.
Pic related is about as survivable as A-10 against goat molesters and lot cheaper to operate.
A-10 isn't best possible COIN plane. It's just closest thing to one in USAF inventory. One they have tried to get rid of since end of cold war because it's not fast mover.
>>29343291
It still needs a full runway, the F-35B can use Helo fields, it's still going to take longer to get over target than any F-35 variant, and the A-10 can't use the high-precision long standoff weapons that massively increase the F-35's active engagement range.
>using current flight hour costs when the fighters are swarmed by contractors collecting data after every flight
>>29343220
>Incidentally it works best in determining how small scale infantry engagements work
It doesn't. Modern small infantry fight is completely asymmetrical in terms of detection and engagement.
>>29333633
>>29334170
>>29334431
It doesn't have terrific thrust and it lacks vectoring unlike most modern designs.
>>29343421
>It doesn't have terrific thrust and it lacks vectoring unlike most modern designs.
the only fighter with a better thrust ratio is the F22 and thats marginal, and the lack of vectored thrust doesnt significantly reduce its agility
>>29343432
Hell, under the same 50% fuel setup as an F-16 gets rated the F-35A has a T/W of 1.07 to the F-22's 1.08.
>>29340920
> F-15 is actually considerably smaller, it's visible from that picture.
Nod really.
>>29340938
EF is just a fighter in a medium size category. Like the Mig-29.
>>29343554
And the F-16 is atypical when it comes to modern fighter size as well, being not much more than an F-15 engine with wings and a cockpit strapped on.
>>29343587
F-16 isn't atypical at all.
The fourth generation of fighter jets is something like this:
-Su-27, Mig-31, F-15 - a heavy fighter jets
-Mig-29, EF, Rafale, F-18 - a medium size jets
-F-16, Grippen - a light fighter jets.
Notice, there was a lot of a single engine fighter jets in 3rd generation.
>>29340938
IAF seems to be getting better at flying straight, good for them
>>29331455
Thread over. You don't have to go to unnaground but you can't stay here
>>29343328
>There is thing called lag when you operate aircraft from other side of the world in air conditioned office, especially if everything is encrypted heavily.
Which matters exactly jack shit when doing CAS in a COIN envrionment. The lag we're talking about isn't any worse than playing a video game on a server somewhere else in the world.
>>29344341
>The lag we're talking about isn't any worse than playing a video game on a server somewhere else in the world.
Playing while playing video game lag doesn't potentially endanger your troops on the ground. You might get few TK's and get banned from that server... doing IRL kills and maims actual people.
Sensors of drones are also often seriously limited in their field of view.
>>29346542
sensors in drones are no worse than sensors in manned planes
>>29344341
No, when you're doing CAS you need to be able to see the environment around you from more than a single fixed camera. The lag you have in that situation can get either your men or civilians killed, that's unacceptable for any professional military.
Drones are terrible at anything more than recon and the rare assassination.
>>29346593
Manned plane has a sensor system not present in drone. Eyeball mk1. It usually has 180 degree plus field of view and it's mounted on flexible mount called neck. It's really effective on daylight and there are also night vision goggles.
Electro-optical sensor on drone is similar to usual targeting pods used by fighters. Usually limited zoom settings, magnified and very much magnified. That leads to narrow field of view, usually called soda straw effect. Similar to looking trough soda straw. Add that to lack of gut feeling to where you are going to and where are you looking towards at the moment leads to situation where it's harder to track whats going on on the ground.
>>29346741
>Manned plane has a sensor system not present in drone. Eyeball mk1.
>I'm full of shit and I don't care
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2q65qOl1tM
>>29341099
Shut the fuck up. A-10s are not special and you need to get over it.
>>29343619
I called Gripen you faggot.
>>29347559
True.
An updated A6 would make a better replacement actually.
>>29347460
Ironically you posted sensor system of a manned plane... that isn't even operational yet.
>>29344326
underrated post
>>29347792
It's been in service since last year
>>29346741
>Manned plane has a sensor system not present in drone. Eyeball mk1.
Fuck off.
'Eyeballing' things means absolutely nothing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/190th_Fighter_Squadron,_Blues_and_Royals_friendly_fire_incident
>>29347792
I don't think it's ironic at all. The point is that if the pilot can see that well from 49.1nmi out then your entire theory that eyes are better is fucked.
>>29331432
>YFW you realize that the F-35 is in practice faster than most other jet fighters just because its larger internal fuel fraction means it can use its afterburner more often
>>29347640
Retiring the A-6 is what people should have bitched about, not the A-10. F/A-18E/Fs are way too fucking short legged compared to them. CSGs literally lost hundreds of miles of strike range.
>>29349830
..you're slightly correct, but for the wrong reasons entirely.
The F-35 is competitive in speed because it can carry stores internally and avoid parasitic drag, meaning it can reach speeds closer to its maximum 'clean' speed more easily.
Legacy aircraft are in practice slower because their max speeds are in a clean state, which they never fly outside of airshows because they're basically unarmed.
Afterburner has nothing to do with it.
>>29349989
Afterburners does have something to do with it because most aircraft are significantly restricted in how much they can use afterburners during a sortie.
Running full afterburners in a plane like F-16 will run you out of internal fuel in less than 10 minutes, which makes sense because it only carries 3 tons of fuel internally. Two more bags only brings it up to like 5.5 tons of fuel. Realistically an F-16 might get 1-2 minutes of afterburner use before it has to make a glide landing.
F-35 carries 9.5 tons of internal fuel. Sure it's engine is probably more thirsty, but the pilot would be free to be more liberal with his afterburner.
>>29349989
Yeah, I know about the internal bays helping to reduce drag, but it occurred to me that the fact that it has such a huge fuel fraction is a big factor too for more than just range. The F-35 may not be able to supercruise but the big ass fuel tank still means that pilots will be able to perform more "dashes" than they would with either the F-16 or F-18, making the F-35 in practice faster than both aircraft.
>>29349939
Yeah it's a shame, the Navy got defanged and people were ok because the AF could still cover it, even though the A-10 is not as capable all around as the A-6 was it's a solid plane and we'll be all right.
Then later the A-10 is getting pulled and it's harder to defend.
A-10 is a better plane in the most common scenarios, and it's a needed plane simply because of the gap in capabilities that opens up when it's retired, but the A-6 was the ultimate leaves no gap plane, nearly as good as the A-10 in common scenarios and far better in several less common ones.
If I had the authority to start the bids for a new plane for the US military, I'd open it up with the following idea: plane should meet or exceed A-6 standards for variety of options on loadout, should meet at least 80% of A-6 standards for tonnage of loadout, shall meet or exceed A-6 standards for low altitude low speed operations, loiter time, ECM and ECCM, minimum maneuverable speed etc.
Logically, using modern capabilities, and keeping the standards as above IE REFUSING to add requirements for 'stealth' or for higher operating speeds or increased air to air capabilities (none of which are of serious value in the intended role) on top of it, and indeed significantly reducing them really (since we would ask for bids on a land-based plane with no need for the nightmare of folding wings and the hassle of a tailhook) we should be able to produce a new model A-6 at a small fraction of the cost of the original, and make it easier to maintain.
>>29350611
Reminder that the F-35 is a better strike aircraft than both for modern conflicts.
>>29350611
Literally what is the point when we can do the same sorts of missions with the Lightning II and Super Bug?
>>29350899
[citation needed]
Honestly man you aren't even trying here, this is such a lame troll I am about to slap myself for replying.
>>29350915
Ok a little better. You *can* do many of the same missions with the SHornets which are excellent strike aircraft but not exactly tailored for CAS specifically. Still it's a field where most of the missions *can* be carried out by most planes and it's really a question of cost and flexibility. The best plane here is not just one that can hit hard, but one that can effectively perform the widest variety of missions at the lowest price. I think you can make a case for the FA-18s but it's not something we can fit in a post on /k/
The F-35 on the other hand simply doesn't have most of the capabilites required here, even if we look simply at loadout and nothing else, until... block 4 is supposed to be here in 2022 am I remembering right?
>>29331432
If the F-35 is so good, then it'd beat the F-16 in guns vs guns combat.
But it hasn't, because it can't.
Checkmate locktard.
>>29346741
Is it safe to say that pilots always get the very best night vision?
What is the history of aviation nightvision?
>>29350899
"Modern conflicts" is code for Israeli plans for America.
We need to be prepared for more scenarios.
>>29352665
Guns vs guns is the most inefficient way to defeat enemy air power.
The most efficient way is on the ground, bombing their airfields before they have a chance to take off.
Failing that, it is the highest form of the art to avoid the merge if at all possible. Every minute spent in dogfighting is fuel wasted, energy wasted, time wasted.
To say a plane is best at gun fighting is to say a plane has failed to get the job done some other way. To optimize a plane for gun fighting is to optimize a plane for the least-optimal solution to the problem.
Better to optimize a plane for solving the problem before it ever gets to a gun fight, and accept the few losses that are bound to happen in edge cases.
F-16 is a great plane for what it does, but F-16 fags should be ashamed of themselves for bringing a 4.5 plane to a 5/6 conversation.
>>29331432
>Europeans unequivocally supporting someone that flings shit at something American out of spite
>It backfires, of course
Just look at posts like >>29332781 to see the kind of people you're dealing with
>>29348359
Yes all the features are totally implemented and it's fully operational.... or alternatively they declared it IOC because schedule must be maintained. Last time I checked they actually expected to be able to deploy 'em to combat missions by early 2020's.
Very much same system is going to be used by Avenger.... previously known as Predator C... previous predator drone with modified wing and turbofan engine... guess what... they use less same sensor packages on than on F-35 due to costs.
>>29348947
Drones have been involved in zero friendly fire incidents and have never caused any collateral damage. Yeah right.
>>29349778
They aren't usually dropping bombs or doing gun runs from 49.1 nmi out when doing CAS missions.
>>29352749
Usually air forces use far more money per trooper than other branches especially when it comes to pilots. Sure there is a ton of bureaucracy involved in getting night vision goggles approved for flight operations, but generally they have better acces to NVG's than average guy with boots on the ground.
>>29353871
>They aren't usually dropping bombs or doing gun runs from 49.1 nmi out when doing CAS missions
With SDB II, and SPEAR coming soon, they probably will be.
>>29339536
fuck off paige, go back to jvc
>>29353871
A gps guided SDB is just as accurate from 40 miles away than from 2000ft away.
>>29353871
F-35B is carrying out mock deployment right now.
There is nothing stopping the marines from putting them on LHDs and depolying them today. Right now, RIGHT NOW, the f-35B is vastly superior to the harrier II its replaceing.
>>29351940
>hurr low and slow is da only way duh go!
>>29352799
Looks like /pol/ got out of its containment board again.
>>29331432 (OP)
F-35 isn't that bad either, EF is kinda decent. Tho EF is prolly better in terms of cost effectiveness. F-35 should be better for its price.
>>29354207
40 miles away you don't see stuff as well as couple miles away. Regardless are you looking at it with thermal imager of targeting pod or with bare eyes.
>>29354219
>F-35B is carrying out mock deployment right now.
Mock deployment for training purpose, that is part of getting it actually operational.
>There is nothing stopping the marines from putting them on LHDs and depolying them today. Right now, RIGHT NOW, the f-35B is vastly superior to the harrier II its replaceing.
There is one thing stopping 'em. Harrier is proven platform and it can do better sortie rates than F-35 can do at the moment. F-35 will eventually out do Harrier, even when it comes to sortie rate, but it hasn't been fully chewed up and digested by 'muhreen corpse.
>>29354314
>You can literally ID what kind of trucks are in peoples back yard from 49.1nmi on the F-35 EOTS
>40 miles away you don't see stuff as well as couple miles away. Regardless are you looking at it with thermal imager of targeting pod or with bare eyes.
Confirmed for retarded.
>There is one thing stopping 'em. Harrier is proven platform and it can do better sortie rates than F-35 can do at the moment. F-35 will eventually out do Harrier, even when it comes to sortie rate, but it hasn't been fully chewed up and digested by 'muhreen corpse.
Double confirmed.
>>29354487
It was confirmed the moment he said mk.1 eyeball, anon.
>>29354283
No seriously. "Modern conflicts" is just a way to say "we only plan on fighting goat-fuckers". We need to be prepared for much more than just that.
Pierre Sprey is an angry old man and should never be listened to
See: F-20 Tigershark
>>29357655
The F-20 was a genuinely better fighter than the F-16. It had a better radar and it could use BVR missiles (something that the F-16 couldn't do until after 1989). It also was cheaper and lower operating costs.
>>29357655
>>29357755
i dream of breaking into the california science museum, hijacking the last F-20 there and flying off to the middle east to be a merc pilot
>>29357755
He might be referring to Sprey spending much of the early 80s shilling the F-20 and then blaming its failure on the fact that it had the BVR and some anemic A2G capability in the first place.
>>29354487
>You can literally ID what kind of trucks are in peoples back yard from 49.1nmi on the F-35 EOTS
In optimal conditions that doesn't exist everywhere and every time F-35 will be used. In most real life conditions range is less than theoretical maximum range. There are things like weather and in worse case shit like successful communications jamming becomes a thing.
Since we are talking about theoretical things. 7.62NATO can kill people at ranges longer than 5km. Why all opponents of NATO simply don't drop dead at that range? Some hunter around my neck of woods had negligent discharge with .308win hunting rifle pointing about 40 degrees to sky. Some one about 5km away died. Why military doesn't have that kind of skill.
>Double confirmed.
Why F-35 isn't used right now against ISIS? It is deployable since they declared IOC. They can do some missions, at horrible rate, that doesn't mean that they can do everything it's supposed to do. Harriers sortie rate is way higher at the moment, because Marines know how to deal with most issues that come with airframe, despite Harriers are starting to feel issues that come with old and worn out airframes.
>>29354501
Peripheral vision is irrelevant. At the moment drone operators have to deal with the fact that their options at looking down to ground are maginified CCD or thermal or even more magnified CCD or thermal. Every drone that is operational at the moment has problem with that, as senors are less mobile and have limited field of view, on top of that those are spectated on fucking monitor.
Drones are fine for surveillance or discrete missions where plausible deniability means that manned platforms can't be used. The real advatage in drones is loiter time. Almost every drone is basically a fucking cessna with longer wing and more fuel minus cockpit to reduce drag. Since those are operated mostly from air conditioned offices, they can switch crews while in operation.
>>29357755
F-20 also had much shorter range. In visual range dogfight it would have fucked F-16... but it would have been much worse multi-role fighter. For users looking for point defense fighter with some BVR and bombing capability it would have been a better fighter. F-16's radar and BVR capability was something that was delayed... possibly because USAF wanted more F-15's, in the end it became much more capable fighter than F-20 ever could become.
>>29358594
An unguided bullet and a PGM are not the same thing, you mouthbreather.
If you could guide bullets and have a target at 5km, you could totally get hits.
Also, I have no idea why you think a pilot sitting at altitude at a 10" MFD at his LITENING display is somehow superior to a drone pilot doing the same thing under less stress.
It is as accurate as the sensors and FAC support provided, which doesn't change due to inherent flaws / pros of unmanned and manned platforms.
>>29358594
>and in worse case shit like successful communications jamming becomes a thing.
If communications are jammed you ain't doing any CAS with any craft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jabjgY6B2nM
>>29358669
>An unguided bullet and a PGM are not the same thing, you mouthbreather.
Both of those have same limitation. Line of sight or line of detection. While .308/7.62NATO can kill at 5km.... most of time it's shot at ranges ranges less than 1km. Usually anything beyond that involves either luck or colossally bad luck as in case with hunter murdering someone 5km away with ballistic negligent discharge.
>Also, I have no idea why you think a pilot sitting at altitude at a 10" MFD at his LITENING display is somehow superior to a drone pilot doing the same thing under less stress.
Because he has pair of eyes, possibly night vision goggles, to do coarse target acquiring before doing that with a targeting pod like litening or sniper on that 10" screen. Drone relies entirely on that litening or sniper pod. That limits their field of view.
Fighters and training aircraft used as light attack aircraft tend to be far more maneuverable than drones.
>>29358696
>If communications are jammed you ain't doing any CAS with any craft.
Jamming communications between ground and a plane flying a bit above them might be harder than jamming communications between ground unit - a satellite - a HQ - the drone crew and finally the drone instead of infantry unit and a plane. There are more points where everything can be fucked up. Either by enemy jamming or by loving fucking nature.
>>29357829
Shin, is that you?
>>29359303
>YFW the F-35 can be fed ground-side sourced imagery and coordinates from this or any other networkable surveillance system and engage with SDB-Is from anywhere in a 65nmi+ radius
>>29359303
You're too stupid for words, but at the very least you don't have any power to ruin things, so hey ho.
>>29359472
>>29359509
Are you guys >implying that everything will work as planned every time. Regardless of possibly changing conditions.
>>29359472
>>29359509
Why F-35 wasn't available for deployment in 2010 and why ATF aka F-22 wasn't available for deployment in 1992?
YF-22 first flew on September 29th 1990. Why F-15 is still being used since replacement arrived on September 29th 1990? Like all technology it was available on all the numbers USAF wanted at that very moment the prototype took off.
Every program will be on schedule and has achieved it's targets in capabilities.
>>29360038
What if an asteroid hits earth?
There. Now any military equipment can't deal with that scenario is useless. Why? Because I came up with a scenario where it wouldn't work. That makes it useless. That's how this stuff works.
>>29360038
>Implying the US military doesn't fucking make it work, and say fuck you to obstacles
