1000, get ready to start the jet.
1200, after two system recycles, and a complete reboot, finally airborne.
1230, Turn around, land, and reset the computer that won't talk to weapons.
This happens 33% of the time
>>29911187
Come on, LockMart, get your shit together.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/10/f-35-test-pilot-edwards-air-force-development/84042220/?utm_content=%5B%27link%27%5D&utm_source=%5B%27fark%27%5D&utm_medium=%5B%27website%27%5D
>>29911187
that sounds like the day of an average fighter pilot.
i once had to wait for crew in my formation for an hour sitting at the end of the runway while both jets they took broke twice each.
and our jets are about 30 years old at this point. they've basically got the kinks worked out.
No reply
Hahaha
Every one knows F35 is very good and stable.
>"The best analogy is you are starting up your computer and you want to use Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook, and you are trying to get your work done for the day, and PowerPoint and Outlook came up but you are having an issue with Excel," said Brendan Rhatigan, director of engineering and test operations for the F-35 ITF.
>"So you say, I don't know what's going on, so let me X out of that, let me restart it again."
Well, yeah, except that when you're having an issue with Excel, you're usually not doing Mach 2 at 35,000 feet with people trying to kill you.
Someone should really do an article on the mil/aero software release process. Otherwise this doesn't make any sense and just seems like crap code. SW integration in such programs is insane even for mundane issues. It can takes months if not years to get a bug fix (once its known) through V&V, release and acceptance.
>high tech plane that is still being developed has issues
wow
shocking
>>29911187
While I completely understand new stuff having to get the kinks worked out and truly believe it will sufficiently serve as a multi-role fighter, this thing has just gotten so fucking expensive and has taken so long.... come the fuck on. Not to mention it will never exceed the capabilities of the A10 at CAS, nor should it be expected to unlike what the AF would want us to believe. A multi-role anything cannot perform any specific role better than any dedicated piece of equipment.
I would not expect an assault rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge to outperform an M110 at 800 meters, nor would I expect it to outperform a handgun for fighting in a phone booth.
Multirole is an excellent across the board high number supplement to dedicated weapons platforms, I'm afraid the USAF is forgetting this.
>>29911278
How is it expensive? I don't really expect the program for the aircraft that will replace the majority of NATO's multiroles to be cheap.
How is it less capable at CAS compared to the A-10?
Here, let me save some time:
>low and slow
Meme, not possible in anything other than COIN. B-1s do the majority of CAS anyways, they aren't exactly slow.
>Survivability
Meme, they took so many losses and so much damage in GW that they had to be pulled from the frontlines and replaced with "less capable" multiroles. They also don't have any armor besides the bathtub and system redundancy is higher in newer aircraft
>muh gun
Muh PGMs (brimstone, SDB, LGBs, JDAMs, GAU-22)
>muh payload
less than the F-35 in terms of both weight carried and available pylons
>muh CSAR
F-35 has been shown to perform better CSAR in high treat environments during tests.
>muh price
Cheaper unit price than all contemporary and comparable multiroles. Saab is basically a F-16, not really comparable capability.
>>29911245
It is well known. And well documented.
If you are interested you could look up MIL-STD-498 which remains popular since all the templates are freely and legally available on the net.
Or did you mean write about it in here? I used to work in a defence company and did this for a living.
Mind you, in addition to the tech and the specs there is a huge cultural factor in this too and that is messy. And expensive.
>>29911278
if you were an 11B, you don't really have much of a standing on saying what counts as an effective fighter or why it's so expensive unless you commissioned and went to TOPGUN/Weapons School or Test Pilot School.
just like how I as a fighter pilot don't know the first thing about what makes your life easier.
Maybe if you had any idea what you're talking about you'd realize that this is expected:
>Around 10 a.m., LeClair walked out to begin checking his jet, which was loaded with a version of the Block 3F software that will eventually give the plane its full combat capability. AF-3 was set to fly a captive carry missile test using AIM 9X and AIM 120 missiles, an exercise meant to test that the loaded weapons can communicate with the jet's main computer
>3F software
Most aircraft are currently running 3I software, AF-3 (one of the first planes produced) is testing the new software for bugs. You niggers are shitting on it for doing its job.
This is what you get when you sub out the development work to DICE.
The plane is waiting on some promised DLC.
>>29911278
A-10 is a piece of shit that would get shot down flying against anyone with real AA
>>29911535
Anybody with real AA has nukes. We will never ever fucking ever get into a shooting war with a nuclear power. A shooting war with a nuclear power will be won or lost on boomers. What use is a semi-stealthy jet in that scenario?
>>29911552
>anyone will use nukes
Loving this meme
>>29911371
Im more qualified than most of /k/, and youre right. Aside from being a military aviation "enthusiast", im not qualified.
>>29911535
The a10 has flown against AA and survived. This is silly.
>>29911357
I dont think people understand the difference between an air strike and CAS. The F35 is going to be excellent at delivering ordinance accurately. This does not mean it will be anything more than marginal at providing CAS. I never said the F35 is a turkey unlike Pierre. My point still stands that "jack of all trades master of none" is just that, and the F35 is over priced and over budget. These are accurate statements, and as a tax payer i hope this aircraft ends up worth it in the long run. I want to see it succeed, but if it cant, i want our forces to have the right equipment for the job whatever it may be.
Fair enough?
>>29911617
Don't you know where you are? Take your reasonableness and gtfo.
>>29911278
>A multi-role anything cannot perform any specific role better than any dedicated piece of equipment.
>mfw
>>29911569
You are not the best at reading comprehension.
>>29911357
A-10 would actually cost around $50-60 million in today's dollars
Take into account Fairchild Republic is kill and all the tooling for A-10 is gine, I'd say the "muh price" meme is pathetic
>>29911617
>master of none
It's going to be the most competent multiroles ever created. It's going to be the most effective SEAD aircraft ever created. It's going to be the 2nd best AtA fighter in service in the world. It's going to be the best strike aircraft ever created.
What about it makes it bad at CAS? You say it's different than an air strike but don't explain how? How do these differences effect the F-35's capability at supporting ground troops?
>>29911617
>11B
>Talking about CAS
>mfw
You don't even know what CAS means.
All the other shit aside I just don't understand how the gun doesn't have firmware yet.
>>29911666
Shut up, Satan >:^(
>>29911617
>tripfag
Opinion discarded
>>29911617
>The a10 has flown against AA and survived.
Its flight profile resulted in the A10 being pulled off the front lines of the Gulf War due to excessive losses, while F16s and F15s continued interdiction ops as normal.
The F35 runs on a different model of war than the ATO era - it carries both sensors and weapons on the same platform, plus the networking to be effective. One F35 may be slightly better than one A10, but 4 F35s will be significantly more effective than 4 or 8 or 12 A10s.
Moreover, the entire "CAS" debate is inherently flawed because it rests on a USAF-perpetrated model of aerial support from the ATO era. The exact model of aircraft matters little because the major limiting factor is the bureaucracy surrounding their employment.
A turboprop from WW2 under Army CCA doctrine will provide better "CAS" than a bleeding edge plane under USAF CAS doctrine, because USAF CAS is a shitty hybrid of interdiction and artillery doctrines.
Hence the popularity of the Super Tucano - objectively, a cheap and limited airframe, but highly effective because it's sold as a helicopter replacement, and inherits the CCA doctrines helicopter use falls under.
>>29911635
Yea youre right. Was worth a shot though. Sometimes in the middle of the night some good dis/k/ussions can still be had. Seems like /k/ has really gone downhill in the last 4 years.
>>29911768
>super tucano
Cool aircraft. I like the keep it simple idea...what ever happened to the OV10 anyway? Seemed like that thing was great as light CAS, FAC, and observation. I remember seeing one at an airshow as a kid and just thinking it was the shit.
>>29911788
Jesus Christ you're a faggot.
Give some counterpoints and stop acting like you're more intelligent than everyone else. Sorry that you're too much of a grownup to have a half-decent argument.
You've literally just said
>The F-35 can't do CAS like the A-10 and it's expensive
As if that's somehow respectable criticism. You've ignored the fact that all military aircraft unit prices have increased since we could put guns on something that could fly. You also have yet to state why the F-35 can't do CAS.
Please, make me hate it. I want to understand how this aircraft's development problems are more severe than legacy aircraft. Convince of the the truth.
>>29911811
OV-10 recently saw combat in an experimental deployment, they supported special forces in the ME. It's unlikely they will be reintroduced to service.
Which sucks dick because that's exactly the type of aircraft we need for low intensity conflicts. I
You failed reading comprehension. Why should I have a conversation with someone who only presents fallacies? I never said the F35 cant perform CAS, in fact I said it could (assuming it does get fielded which im sure it will). More than once. I can think of worse aircraft for the role for sure. Going to bed, night gents.
>>29911850
Boeing claims there has been sufficient interest from other countries that they're going to push forward on the OV-10X program.
>>29911905
If you think that by
>can't do CAS
That I didn't mean "can't do it well in comparison to the A-10," you have an even poorer understanding of the English language than me. (I'm also on mobile and can't proofread shit well, sorry)
You're arguing semantics and still haven't given any counterpoints. I'm just legitimatelay interested in why you think the A-10 is better than the F-35 at providing Close Air Support.
>>29911915
Yeah, I think some SA country still operates them. I'm referring to US service though.
Not OP, not a poster of anything here yet, but I just want to point out.
>Top Gun was created to teach pilots how to use the F-4 in a way it wasnt meant to be used (Dog Fighting, and low level bombing) It was an interceptor, meant to shoot missiles at targets out of sight.
>Hippie Vietnam policy decided we cant shoot at anything we cant see, so now we gotta use it as a dog fighter/low level bomber.
>We found a way, we got our best crazy ass pilots to find a way to dog fight with it and they taught others who taught others. It turned out to be an effective weapon if you know how to use it.
>Our f-16/15/18s are more than capable, and will be for a long time
>My opinion, the f-22/35s are a wast of money on something we dont need, and probably wont even be able to use in a large conflict if it were to happen (again look at Vietnam and how the hippie draft dodging war protesters and politicians who wanted to be re-elected fucked our pilots, not letting them use the full effective potential of their aircraft)
>>29911827
He can't because he is gay
>>29911990
Philippines still use them to remove kebab
>>29911617
Listen m8, we both know grunts have no word in this. You cannot compare OIF with something that may come in 15 years when both of us will be old raging wife beating alcoholics. You cannot compare the present way to fight with whats coming in the future. And don't expect fighting the same sand people, just look at Ukraine.
And the 35 won't replace everything, there will still be Super Hornets, Strike Eagles etc.
>>29911187
As an A/C techie on a fighter built for availability and efficient maintenance, this looks pretty goddamn normal to me. The stuff that goes on in these computers can be some deep voodoo shit.
>>29912191
The majority of recent engagements were with BVR missiles, usually on enemies that did not know they were being fired upon.
I mean shit, just look at the Su-24 that got shot down by Turkey.
>>29911617
> I'm more qualified than anyone
And there you have it. A faggot in every sense of the word justifying why he needs to have his own handle on this website. Fucking cocksure cock sucker. Tripniggers on k are the suicidal private that refuses to train, but wears 7.62 design t shirts in the weekends of the internet
>>29912873
>Tripniggers on k are the suicidal private that refuses to train, but wears 7.62 design t shirts in the weekends of the internet
This
The faggot is proud of being a fucking 11B.
Probably left service straight after his first tour.
>>29911698
>It's going to be the most
Are you writing a book? High fantasy perchance? For I see zero arguments, perhaps a smidgeon of hope from a sorry taxpayer.
I realise the West has an established tradition in underestimating our opponents but some of you guys elevate this to an art. Both Russia and China are working on similar technology and it is well established that L-M had a visitor over the net,, hauling off a lot of data. just as they were able to shoot down that F-117 in spite of much explaining away the fact remains this can happen again. And one should plan for that.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/11/air-force-pilots-maintainers-f-35-pros-and-cons/84232332/
>“It’s the Burger King jet,” Chari said. “You can have it however you want, your way.”
>Officials say ongoing challenges with the F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS, is the single biggest obstacle to declaring the Air Force jets operational on time. An internal diagnostic system that tracks each part of each plane worldwide, ALIS has been the subject of frequent criticism over the years, including the recent claim that if a single server goes dark it could cripple the entire F-35 fleet.
>But maintainers here say that claim is ludicrous. Even if the power goes out, the team can still use ALIS, said RJ Vernon, supervisor for AF-3. All of the jet’s information is stored in a device called a portable maintenance aid, or PMA, which the team can load to the main ALIS data base once the power comes back on.
>AF-3 crew chief Staff Sgt. Cody Patters, who previously worked on A-10s and F-16s, agreed, saying the F-35 is significantly easier to take care of than legacy systems
>>29913070
>using one of the most combat effective aircraft ever produced as an example that aircraft that claim to be amazing aren't actually that amazing.
>implying the fact that only one was shot down isn't proof that it was
The F-117 was a game changer, just like the F-35 will be once it reaches FOC (which we have no reason to believe that it won't). All of the capabilities that have been or will be implemented into the F-35 make it more effective than all aircraft in certain fields, assuming that those capabilities are properly implemented.
>First ever VLO SEAD aircraft.
Considering the main worry in SEAD is getting shot by radar guided missiles, I think that my assertion that is going to be the best plane for the job is reasonable
>2nd VLO Fighter in service
Seriously, sensors/RCS are the most important factors and moder day fighters. It's also reasonable to assume that the F-35 would destroy any foreign aircraft it came up against.
>Best strike aircraft
In high threat environments this is true, F-15E had a higher payload but is more susceptible to IADS and enemy aircraft.
>best multiroles
Definitely the biggest claim I'm making, but considering the above, I think it's not too much of a stretch. There's a reason that so many countries that already have 4.5gen multiroles are also procuring the F-35.
The evils of Concurrent Development.
LockMart starts delivery with incomplete planes. Trapping the military into continued funding for decades to fiNisha the planes. The alternative is the military cancelling and having a few dozen to hundreds airplanes that are worthless and have a high as fuck unit price.
>>29913901
Yeah, we should have just replicated the development process that the F-16 went through since it's such a good aircraft today:
>make plane
>don't test it for 10 years
>put in service
>realize that it's engines are terrible
>lose several pilots to engine failures and other issues
Brilliant idea m8, there's a reason that the F-35 has had the best development safety record of any military aircraft in a really long time.
>>29913855
Excessive green texting that are neither true quotes nor references to anything more credible than Polynesian Flute Music Society discussions will not impress me.
>The F-117 was a game changer, just like the F-35 will be once it reaches FOC (which we have no reason to believe that it won't). All of the capabilities that have been or will be implemented into the F-35 make it more effective than all aircraft in certain fields, assuming that those capabilities are properly implemented.
A forward looking statement based on ample assumptions and defended by No True Scot will not impress me either.
>Considering the main worry in SEAD is getting shot by radar guided missiles, I think that my assertion that is going to be the best plane for the job is reasonable
Considering stealth is from forward angle only a fast radar guided missile will be able to shoot it down from behind. Your assertion does not even begin to address this issue.
>Seriously, sensors/RCS are the most important factors and moder day fighters.
Sentences starting with "Seriously" are serious indicators of weak arguments and little else.
> It's also reasonable to assume that the F-35 would destroy any foreign aircraft it came up against.
Well, that assumption will be just like dozens of earlier disastrous assumptions. So why not clock up one more, right?
>>29911235
>F-35
>Mach 2
LMOA
I want to write a wall of text justifying the F35 but I think I would just be preaching to the choir and feeding a troll thread.
And besides, test pilots don't go on 4chan. They're 50 years old and out banging hot chicks and getting drunk.
>>29914723
What makes you think that stealth is only single aspect (front)? Where did you hear that? It's wrong.
>>29914081
would it be so bad if they built say 4 of every variant. Then tested them to airframe failure in a few years. So they could then present a completed product for sale?
>>29911552
Even a shitty old igla could down an A-10
>>29914854
Look up the F-16's history again, including the need to redesign the tail after the aircraft entered service and hundreds were built.
>>29914854
Because major changes are always made to the craft during development that requires new prototypes. For example, AF-2, one of the very first F-35s manufactured and designed purely as a test craft, is practically a completely different airplane from a Block 3i/3F F-35.
>>29914769
In afterburner, at altitude, it can probably break mach 2.
Considering the scenario is someone is trying to kill you, you're probably using it.
>>29911410
Underrated post
>>29914935
>In afterburner, at altitude, it can probably break mach 2.
The F-35 uses fixed-geometry inlets, limiting top speed to Mach 1.6. It's an idea that Pierre Sprey actually advocated for back in the day. It is a justifiable trade-off because it is easier to maintain stealth with a fixed-geometry inlet system, and fighter planes rarely, if ever, exceed Mach 1.6 anyway.
>>29914922
I swear I've seen this reply before.
How is this making any fucking sense to you?
There is already hundreds of F-35's built.
If they find something that will call for extensive reworking of the airframe, they will need to chop up entire fleet all the same.
>>29915023
Fair enough. Think I actually read that somewhere and forgot it.
>>29915030
The air-frame is basically done.
All the changes they're making now are just small adjustments.
Hundreds of small adjustments, but still.
The software is the real problem right now.
>>29912557
>techie on a fighter built for availability and efficient maintenance
F-5 mechanic?
>>29911187
For anyone who isn't a shitposter and wants real information:
>F-35 locked and loaded with improved Block 3i software
>The F-35 Joint Programme Office (JPO) has stabilised a glitch-prone combination of software and hardware called Block 3i, potentially clearing the way for the US Air Force’s first Lightning II combat squadron to declare initial operational capability (IOC) between August and December.
>F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin has been preparing the software load in parallel with the Block 2B configuration that the Marine Corps' first operational F-35B group declared war-ready status with last July.
>Developmental flight testing of Block 3i started in May 2014. However, problems caused by re-hosting “immature” Block 2B software and capabilities on new computer processors installed in Block 3i aircraft caused flight testing to be restarted in September 2014 and then again in March 2015, reports the Pentagon's top weapons tester.
>The programme office has been grappling with “software stability” issues ever since. Aircraft were reportedly having to shut down and reboot on the tarmac or reset a sensor system or radar "once every 4h". That is an unacceptable failure rate for an operational squadron and significantly worse fault rate compared to earlier Block 2B aircraft, which were only having to reboot once every 30h or more.
Part 1 of 2
>>29915120
>“As of 1 May, the F-35 programme has flown more than 100 flight hours with the 3i software and it has shown approximately twice the level of stability as the previously fielded Block 2B software and three times better stability than the original 3i software,” says the JPO on 8 May.
>Exactly 114 aircraft from low-rate production batches six, seven and eight will be upgraded to the more stable Block 3i configuration starting this week. Those production lots contained 25 internationally owned aircraft for Italy, Australia, Norway, the UK, Japan and Israel.
>The programme office says the latest “stability and mission effectiveness enhancements” from this final Block 3i release have also been incorporated into a new Block 2B update that is being installed in early-model aircraft from production lots two, three, four and five.
>“The entire fleet of fielded F-35 aircraft will eventually be upgraded to these two new software versions by the end of calendar year 2016,” says the programme office. “Concluding Block 2B and 3i development and testing now allows the F-35 programme to focus on completing Block 3F – the full warfighting capability software. The improvements to Block 2B and 3i have been transferred to Block 3F, and all developmental test aircraft and labs have been upgraded to Block 3F.”
Part 2 of 2
Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-locked-and-loaded-with-improved-block-3i-softwa-425098/
>>29914723
Not even thatfag, but the fact that you're stooping to semantics is proof you're arguing from that chip on your shoulder. You're also seriously misinformed, stealth is not unidirectional, detection and stealth are the most important qualities and will continue to be such so long as they both continue improving at dramatic rates.
Are you the 11Bfag?
>>29914723
>You're assuming-
no shit
>that means youre wrong
ehhhhhh...
>Stealth is only from the frontal aspect
Assuming this is true, it doesn't really matter as frontal RCS is the most important dimension. The F-15SE exists purely because Boeing believes that the frontal RCS of an aircraft is important for modern day strike aircraft. This also applies to SEAD aircraft.
That being said, it's false.
>"The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, F-15 exchange pilot in the 65th AS. "It's the most frustrated I've ever been." ""We [even] tried to overload them with numbers and failed," said Colonel Bruce. "It's humbling to fly against the F-22."
Statements from men involved in the production of the F-35 indicate that the RCS of the F-35 is smaller than that of the F-22. The above quote applies to the detection of F-35s WVR as well.
>Sentences starting with seriously indicate weak arguments
ok: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0&index=130&list=FLhqNnmDJ4oHNmWFmvjiU-AQ
Watch this and inform yourself. Intelligence wins "dogfights" in modern air combat.
>More assumptions
still haven't said why they're incorrect.
>>29914854
They wouldn't be able to attain enough flight hours to identify all the problems without taking 40 years.
Think of it this way.
>4 aircraft flying produces x amount of hours which give x amount of issues found
>40 aircaft flying produces 10x amount of hours which gives 10x amount of issues found.
Concurrency is the fastest way to produce aircraft and not have to do massive refits after full-rate production has already begun. Its the best of both worlds.
>>29911187
>Bitching about version 3i.
>Literally the fucking interim testing version
>>29911357
>Saab is basically a F-16, not really comparable capability.
And Gripen NGs are expected to be in the same $100m+ range as the Typhoon and Rafale are now.
>>29911357
>Cheaper unit price than all contemporary and comparable multiroles
>
>>29915537
>expected
Source
>>29911730
>All the other shit aside I just don't understand how the gun doesn't have firmware yet.
The gun is super low priority. That is, they really just don't care about it right now.
>>29911684
>A-10 would actually cost around $50-60 million in today's dollars
That actually sounds like a good argument for keeping them in service more than anything. If each A-10 is worth that much and they're still functional, then might as well keep using them.
>>29915545
>F-35 is $98mil in the latest LRIP batch, expected to continue to lower
>Typhoon Tranche 3A is €90mil
>Rafale C is $94mil at the absolute lowest (In actual purchases, its +$150mil)
ayy lmao
>>29911187
EAT
SLEEP
BREAK THE STREAK
>>29915663
>F-35A FRP complete flyaway $85m
>>29915657
Money spent on maintaining A-10s could instead be spent on newer, more capable air frames.
>>29911278
>I would not expect an assault rifle chambere in an intermediate cartridge... to outperform a handgun for fighting in a phone booth
You rang?
>>29915685
Not that fag, but you're missing the point. A-10 is a mighty propaganda tool, both for our side and against our enemies. And it mulches towl heads on the cheap.
It's current role doesn't need anything more capable.
>>29915562
Closest is the Swiss attempt at 22 NGs for 3.1 billion francs, which averages out to about $145m, but it's likely that around 35-45 of that is spares and similar support purchases.
>>29915735
>And it mulches towl heads on the cheap.
Not that cheap.
>It's current role doesn't need anything more capable.
The 30-year obsolete original design role?
>>29911357
>Cheaper unit price than all contemporary and comparable multiroles. Saab is basically a F-16, not really comparable capability.
Riveting tale, chap.
>>29915754
No, the current role, though it's still OK at trucking Mavericks and cluster bombs.
Cheap enough and good enough to retain the sully chain. Maybe produce updated airframe when the current ones are exhausted. Convert to drone systems when the tech matures enough, integrate SDB, give it more efficient engines, try to bring operating costs down even further. Maybe even try reducing frontal RCS, just for the hell of it. Pure conjecture of course, but if I were the brass I'd at least have the option on file.
>>29915735
>A-10 propaganda tool
Not worth it to have 300 of them in service
>we don't need something more capable for its role
You're right, we need a dedicated COIN aircraft to replace it. I vote Bronco or Super Taco.
I think the F-35 will be a beast, once all the kinks are worked out. Just how long it takes to correct those kinks is my biggest concern.
>>29915801
Wow great argument fagtron you sure convinced me with those hot opinions
Please try to prove me wrong.
>>29915834
>Lots of expensive, bullshit extra work to upgrade an elderly airframe to do what a new one coming into service already does better
>>29915890
It could be if you build them cheaper, more efficient, and easier to maintain after retiring the current airframes, as I've already said. Get dolled up cesnas as the interim option. This is America, damnit. We can still afford to splurge where it counts.
>>29915942
It would be impossible to make a VLO A-10, even just frontal aspect. Fan blades fuck it up.
No doubt we could produce new A-10s if we really wanted to, but we don't want to for a reason. They're an outdated design, based on outdated principles, and their job is better done by other aircraft.
It would be a pointless aircraft made to fill a roll that does not exist, and it would be retardedly expensive.
>>29915925
The military is so risk adverse these days. They might actually want a dedicated aircraft for scooping ground units out of trouble, especially with such a beastly multitude looking after it. Throw the Army and Marines a bone.
I'm not emotionally invested in the A-10. Ultimately I think the military knows what's best for it, at least more than politics and the public do. I'm just seeing options and trying to weigh possibilitues.
>>29915992
What if you fully enclosed said engine and gave it radar blockers like Super Hornet? Just hypothetically speaking.
>>29915992
Radar VLO is pointless, yes, but it could benefit from IR signature reduction.
>>29911357
>muh payload
>less than the F-35 in terms of both weight carried and available pylons
>AVAILABLE PYLONS
You realize it only has 4 internal weapons stores, use of exterior pylons on the wings cuts into MUH LOW OBSERVABILITY. Nigga what. The A-10 has 11 fucking pylons and 1350 rounds of glorious 30MM. The F-35 has 180 rounds of 25MM in a gun they can't even use because of software incompatibility. Troll harder.
>>29916043
If A-10 is ever made compatible with SDB, you'd be right as rain.
>>29916064
The SDB is currently being integrated with several legacy aircraft, A-10's included.
>>29916064
The F-35 isn't even SDB compatible, so whats your point?
>>29916043
Also, GAU-8 is next to useless against heavy armor. And many IFVs and APCs are getting quite heavy these days.
If they ever do update A-10 again, it could greatly benefit from similar software. Make that huge gun as efficient as possible.
>>29916128
IFVs and APCs are getting quite heavy these days, so let's gimp the fuck out of the 'replacement' of our best CAS platform by giving it a shit 25MM gun and limited payload, makes sense if you don't think about it.
>>29916043
>use of exterior pylons on the wings cuts into MUH LOW OBSERVABILITY
So?
>>29916151
So drop a bomb on the target.
>>29916043
>use of exterior pylons on the wings cuts into MUH LOW OBSERVABILITY.
Which is only really critical in the opening shots where we obtain superiority. You are retarded to think having that flexibility is bad.
>The A-10 has 11 fucking pylons and 1350 rounds of glorious 30MM. The F-35 has 180 rounds of 25MM in a gun they can't even use because of software incompatibility. Troll harder.
Maybe 6 functional pylons with pods and tanks, and the F-35 can do 6 pylons with A2G AND have 4 A2A points loaded.
>Implying the gun matters
Navy/Marines don't even want an internal gun.
>>29916102
Excellent.
>>29916119
It's due to be. More importantly, it's due to be availing internally. F-35 can deliver them in contested airspace, something A-10 will never be capable of.
>>29916151
You're a fucking moron, missiles abd bombs kill heavy armor from the air. Weapons like SDB and Brimstone, god bless it's little loyalist circuts.
>>29916180
The whole selling point of the F-35 is the fucking LO. When we (Crew chiefs) find defects in the paint Lockheed loses their goddamn minds and have to call LO shop out to fix it. The F-35 only stands out because of its ability to remain undetected, without that its just really expensive titanium that coincidentally can blow shit up for .2 seconds.
>>29916043
A-10 has 11 stations, but 2 of those are usually devoted to carrying ECM and Targeting pods.
The F-35 can fly with a larger payload than the A-10 in permissible airspace and maintain a Low Observable RCS, and it can fly with just internal stores in non-permissible airspace and maintain a Very Low Observable RCS. The F-35 has options, the A-10C does not.
>>29916195
The point of a dedicated CAS platform is to have hours of loiter time without having to constantly land and re-arm. I've talked to pilots that flew 12 hour combat sorties in durka land without landing, just hitting tankers and blowing sand monkeys up.
>>29915905
>The Russian air force is expanding its Sukhoi-35S fleet with a 100 billion rubles ($1.4 billion) order for 50 more of the twin-engine fighters
Tell me more about how F-35 "has cheaper unit price than all contemporary and comparable multiroles".
>>29916230
Wrong. The whole selling point of the F-35 is that it is a multi-role platform. If you want to maximize stealth, then you can send it out with just internal stores, like an F-117. If you don't care about stealth so much for the current mission, then you can send it out packed with bombs on the wings.
>>29916253
>Hours of loiter time
Then you'd want the F-35, seeing that it can carry more lbs of bombs and more lbs of fuel.
>>29916228
Missiles and bombs do indeed kill heavy armor. A-10s have carried 6 AGM-65s plus a couple GBUs, a Litening pod and ECM pod into combat before. That's still more than the F-35 can do, we're just now starting to do live drops on the USAF side of things so we have no idea what its capable of. I worked A-10s for 3 years and work F-35s now, this is a completely unbiased opinion.
>>29916304
An F-35 can carry 8 SDBs internally, each capable of taking out heavy armor. The sensors and ECM are already part of the F-35.
>>29916230
4ish seconds, actually. Most fighters fall between 4 and 5 seconds for the gun, so F-35s value is average.
You seem to be mistaking the meaning of multirole. F-35 can be outfitted cleanly for penetration strikes. It can be fully loaded for interdiction. SDB is a very effective multirole munition.
>>29916253
>The point of a dedicated CAS platform is to have hours of loiter time without having to constantly land and re-arm. I've talked to pilots that flew 12 hour combat sorties in durka land without landing, just hitting tankers and blowing sand monkeys up.
And? The F-35 has both similar/greater practical payload compared to the A-10, a far bigger fuel tank, better coverage umbrella, and IN-FLIGHT REFUELING IS STILL A THING.
>>29916261
China bought 24 Su-35s for $2bil, or $84mil per aircraft. Not sure if that includes spares but that comes out at about $84mil.
Also:
>Implying the Su-27++++ is anywhere near a "contemporary" to the F-35
Its probably only superior in WVR ACM, which literally couldn't matter less these days. It is outclassed in every metric that matters.
>>29916304
As has been said, SDB is an effective tank buster, and if I'm not mistaken has a similar range to the Maverick. Though A-10 is receiving this munition as well.
Personally the idea of a further refined A-10 excites me almost as much as F-35 does.
>>29916323
Plus another 4 racks of 4, for up to 24 strikes per mission.
>>29915992
I think the criticisms coming from the A-10 fanboys have some merit, if we don't interpret them as saying we should LITERALLY keep A-10's flying for another 30 years. Rather, we should build a dedicated ground attack plane, that uses some of the good traits of the A-10, while also incorporating modern ideas like stealth.
>>29916323
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/f-35-cant-carry-its-most-versatile-weapon-until-at-leas-1688616599
It actually can't carry 8 SDB's because of how fucked the situation is inside the weapons bays. Fleet wide modifications are required kek. Glorious Strike Eagles and Hornets are ahead of the game in SDB integration.
>>29916407
That's the SDB II and only for the F-35B. All 3 variants can carry the SDB 1 with Block 3F, the F-35B needs minor adjustments (none which are structural) to fit the SDB II for Block 4.
>>29916373
Mavs still need visual designation. SDB-I has a 65nmi+ range.
>>29916151
Unlike the 30mm guns of the A-10 and AH-64, the 25mm on the F-35 is intended primarily against soft-targets, like aircraft, infantry, trucks, etc. It's a step up from the 20mm Vulcans found on most western air-superiority or multi-role fighters.
>>29916427
>minor adjustments
>not usable till 2020s
They completed fleet wide engine time changes in less time, how is this situation minor?
>>29916434
Maverick is 22+. I'll take 3x wrong for off the top of the head.
>>29916363
>Its probably only superior in WVR ACM, which literally couldn't matter less these days
Do we actually know what does matter in air combat these days? When was the last actual air-to-air kill in real combat?
>>29916449
Do you even IOC?
>>29916449
Because its unimportant and not a priority, same as the gun.
Also, for the person earlier in the thread that said the Gau-22 firmware doesn't work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Nv3FIHNK0
>>29916470
>Setting up for No True Scotsman unashamedly.
2/10.
>>29916477
IOC for the Air Force at the earliest is expected by August....whats your point?
>>29911187
Ayyy lmao
Sounds like the life of a c5m
I don't see the problem, I love fred
>>29916500
The I, it stands for initial. As in beginning, a rough draft, incomplete. It refers both to the aircraft itself, and the aircraft fleets. 2020 is only four years away my friend. That's a small time for us people, let alone the most sophisticated killing machines piloted by man.
>>29916470
Yeah, BVR shooters are king now, ACM will only continue to get more and more irrelevant.
>>29916536
Exactly. IOC is INITIAL. The Air Force is doing a hell of a push to get the A-10 out of the door before its 'replacement' is even FOC, that's my biggest issue with the program. I volunteered to GTFO of A-10s because of that, working F-35s is a lot easier life, the Air Force actually cares about it.
>>29915120
>>29915128
I find it absolutely hilarious that F35 software uptimes are worse than home computers running Windows whatever and operated by computer-illiterate morons.
It's a relatively simple piece of software. And it is geared towards reliability above everything else.
For fuck's sake, it even runs on an EAL6 certified OS. That's higher assurance level than any other OS in existence. It's (partially) written in fucking mil-spec ADA83 which has ridiculous errorchecks in place.
How in the hell can it be so godawfully buggy?
>>29916230
That's blatantly incorrect. The major selling point is actually being a multirole platform with insane sensors and avionics. Even if you use external pylons, you still possess all of that. Why wouldn't you? Besides, if you won't send an F-35 with external stores into an environment because it's too hazardous, then you sure as hell aren't going to be sending the A-10. It'd be suicidal.
>>29916578
Current plans are to retire A-10 squadrons while replacing them on a squadron-by-squadron basis with F-35s. I think it starts in 2018, F-35 reaches FOC just 2 years after that.
>>29916609
>Take software that has a time between failures that is equal to legacy fighters
>update to the next block
>Its buggy, lower time between failures
>Fix bugs
>Take software that has a time between failures that is equal to legacy fighters
>update to next block
>its buggy, lower time between failures.
>fix bugs
>repeat
>>29916578
But F-35 isn't a replacement, you know that. A-10 is being chopped because it's role evaporated.
>>29916715
I mean, that's exactly how software development works.
>>29916467
>Operational range Greater than 22 km (12 nmi)
>I'll take 3x wrong for off the top of the head.
Wrong units, buddy. And it still requires direct visual of the target in the CCD in the nose to hit.
>>29916750
Not sure if you're the person I responded to but:
It use to not be buggy in earlier iterations, it had to get altered, leading to more failures. It will slowly be refined until the next block.
Its pretty obvious how it can be so godawfully buggy, and its pretty obvious that it won't be an issue when it reaches FOC.
>>29916715
Yeah, cute greentext. But it's completely unrelated.
How in the fuck can the F35 (or jet fighters in general, whatever) be unreliable piece of shit?
Even consumer-grade operating systems used by dumbfuck consumers running software written by code monkeys are considerably more reliable.
>>29916363
Even with all service and metric fucktons of spares that China obviously bought it is still cheaper than Lockmart toy even without an engine.
>Implying bugged fat Lockmart toy can even compete
So when was it that it will finally be able to carry ARMs? Like in 2025?
>>29911617
>. My point still stands that "jack of all trades master of none" is just that
Its funny that no one has heard the rest of that saying.
"Jack of all trades, master of none, often times better than a master of one."
>>29916827
>Software development process.
>Unrelated to software development.
>Inb4 just pretending to be retarded.
>>29916827
Yeah it's almost as if those consumer grade operating systems have literally thousands, to hundreds of thousands of data points and various bits of info regarding crashes/failures that get transmitted back constantly for data analysis and software upgrade capabilities.....
vs
A couple F-35's used for software/flight testing and eventual Fleet Issue software that then gets bugs/issues transmitted back via proper channels.
>>29916827
Because its software is currently being designed? I'm glad that your PC (which is a final product) doesn't crash, but the similarities between the two seem to be quite different, don't you think? The jet has like 8 million lines of code.
>>29916855
Not saying I don't believe you, but can you link to a full description of what the purchase included?
>RCS of Russian barn
>Can't into EOTS DAS
>Doesn't have basesd AMRAAM, the most proven and effective BVR missile in existence
>Can do backflips at airshows and crash into Ukrainian tourists.
F-35 doesn't need HARM, though the AGM-88E will be integrated. Its onboard sensors can detect radar emissions, allowing it to use weapons such as MALDs or SDBs to engage SAM sites.
>>29917052
...Does MALD even have a warhead? Not that I believe it couldn't kill shit with KE alone.
>>29917066
Fucking shit I meant JSOW, MALD would help though
>>29916449
Because the SDB II hadn't gone into mass production yet / is still in development. If Lockheed changed the weapon bays, but Raytheon then realised they had to modify the SDB II x4 rack (eg after finding some aerodynamic separation issues on the F-15E), then Lockheed would have changed the bays for no reason and would have to change them again.
Also, the change isn't structural, it's literally just offsetting a wire bundle and hydraulic line (that run along the inside of the weapons bay walls) about 2 inches.
>>29916907
That is a valid argument only for modern home PCs. But we've had extremely reliable PC software running in servers since the early 80s. I used to work on Novell NetWare 286 back in those days. These operating systems never were built with military-grade reliability standards in mind, yet their stability outperform a state of the art warplane by ridiculous margins.
I don't see any justifiable reasons how the F35 (or any other jet fighter) could be so hilariously inferior in terms of reliability.
>>29917052
Wow, 8M LOC? Big fucking deal, any modern deskop OS has 5 times that. Modern cars have ten times more. Even a goddamn Boeing 787 flight software is over 10M.
AND THEY ARE ALL CONSIDERABLY MORE RELIABLE.
>>29917143
8M vs 10M is not a very significant difference. However, the difference in complexity between a passenger jet and F-35 is immense.
My opinion? A-10 was a damn fine plane for the jobs it's done, it has saved lives of not just guys on the ground, but its pilots. That being said, I don't believe it will hold up in any serious engagement at this point in time.
>>29917143
>never were built with military-grade reliability standards in mind
Congrats on answering your own question. It's amazing how different a system operates when you move it from a completely stable, unmoving, temperature controlled enviorment to something that is non-stop vibrating, constant temperature changes, constant power fluctuations, and a plethora of other differences.
>>29917249
My god, you're retarded.
The *source code* has nothing to do with the reliability of the *hardware* used to run it.
>>29917143
>These operating systems never were built with military-grade reliability standards in mind, yet their stability outperform a state of the art warplane by ridiculous margins.
They were a fuckton simpler than an F-35's avionics.
>Wow, 8M LOC? Big fucking deal, any modern deskop OS has 5 times that. Modern cars have ten times more. Even a goddamn Boeing 787 flight software is over 10M.
GUI has a big impact on LOC; the F-35 has a fair bit of GUI, but it's all fairly simple stuff; basic icons and direct video streams. Take a modern luxury car and you have code dedicated to making the wheels on an animated picture of your car spin at a representative RPM. Take ALIS (the F-35's logistics software) for example; the F-35 has 8 million LOC, ALIS has 16 million LOC.
Also, Microsoft spends something like $10 billion a year on software R&D; Lockheed has spent about $55 billion over 20 years on developing everything about the F-35. The automotive industry spends about $100 billion a year on R&D, meaning that they've spent roughly on the order of $2 trillion in R&D over the F-35's lifespan.
Also, the 787's has 7 million LOC.
>>29917269
Congrats, you pestered a mechanical engineer about computer science till he fucked up. You done? Sheet, ain't even that fag.
>>29917143
>Still comparing finished systems to an aircraft still in development
You're a special kind of stupid.
>>29912191
>>My opinion, the f-22s are a wast of money
you shut your whore mouth
>>29917269
>Hey guys we've got the program to work 100% fine with no restarts on this climate controlled ground trainer!
>Cool, lets send it to the test bed aircraft for actual testing!
>Well fuck it still resets itself and has issues
>>29917052
>The Chinese contract to purchase Russian fighter Su-35 provides ground support equipment supply and spare engines.
https://lenta.ru/news/2015/11/19/su35knr/
>RCS of Russian barn
>Su-35S
Cool story.
>AMRAAM, the most proven and effective BVR missile in existence
That has show down 9 aircraft including two 3rd gen fighters and an attack aircraft from 60s. Not saying it's a bad record, but using epithets like "the most proven and effective in existence" is really stretching it.
>Has to chose between low RCS and payload
>Can't into OLS-35
>Doesn't have the based R-77
>Can launch its compressor blades into air
Oh course it doesn't need HARM. Who needs HARM when you are grounded because of another BSoD after two decades of development?
>>29917405
SU-35 sure as shut isn't VLO. Pak-fa isn't even VLO.
>>29917439
I didn't day it's VLO. RCS of a barn is what generally describes any 4th gen fighter. Aircraft like Su-35S or Advanced Super Hornet have RCS reduced by an order of magnitude in comparison.
>>29917535
Fair enough.
>>29917275
Finally, a reasonable post. Yes, research & development funding could be a big factor in this.
Although your numbers appear to be exaggerated, a cursory examination of R&D budgets shows clear trends; software and auto industry R&D budgets in general are far ahead of aerospace and defense.
But still, sweeping generalizations like industry-wide budgets should not directly correlate with code quality in such a drastic manner. And it certainly ca not explain the vast difference between airliner and fighter software reliability.
>>29917296
This is not about the F35 in particular. Mature jet fighters have the same issues.
Imagine if airliners had to be repeatedly rebooted and power-cycled every time they land. Absolutely ludicrous idea.
>>29917557
>And it certainly ca not explain the vast difference between airliner and fighter software reliability
Fighters simply have more complexity. Remember, this software reliability pertains to weapons systems having glitches or requiring restarts; the core flight and navigation software doesn't have any such issues, just like those airliners.
>>29917405
>Doesn't have RCS of a flying grain silo
lol, superhornet has a frontal RCS of .1m^2
Su-35 is allegedly between 1m^2 and 3m^2
>Saying that the AIM-120 is the most proven and effective BVR missile is a stretch
lol, please name a more proven BVR missile
>OLS-35
lol 90 degree search field, cant function as a MAWS
>R-77
lol never used in combat
>>29916407
SDB is an AF only weapon. the only fighter that carries it is the F-15E. and the LAR is monstrous.
>>29916470
the last USAF fighter pilot to shoot someone down is now a 4 star general
>>29915657
>$50-60 mil per COIN plane
Anon.
>>29916043
>The A-10 has 11 fucking pylons
And normally only carries 4 JDAM's and 2 Mavericks.
>>29917807
COIN and CAS. It being a fan favorite in the later, it's worth mentioning.
The fans, of course, being anyone who actually gets shot at.
>>29916151
The 30mm gun an A-10 carries would be just as ineffective against uparmored IFV/APC as a 25mm is. Aircraft fired AP rounds are gimp as fuck compared to APFSDS of the same size.
This is ignoring that PGM's have always been an A-10's primary air to ground weapons.
>>29917630
>superhornet has a frontal RCS of .1m^2
Cool story.
>Saying that missile that shot 9 aircraft in its entire service time is the best thing in existence is not a stretch
The point is over your head.
>90 degree
180 degree, dumbass.
>cant function as a MAWS
Why would it? It has dedicated MAWS.
>never used in combat
So basically like the whole F-35.
>>29911226
[[0.35¢ has been deposited into your account.]]
-Lockheed Martin Employee Accounting & Billing
>>29917870
Setting aside that its primary method of performing CAS is dropping PGM's from 30k feet like every other aircraft, and that it cannot be used if the opposition has a functional air defense.
>>29917269
hardware issues easily cause problems that look like software issues
And it wasn't all one place writing software
And things are complicated, need debugging
How many F-35's have crashed due to bugs so far? Obviously what they are doing is working fine
>>29917884
>I cannot refute him, but I must pretend to have the moral high ground
>>29917915
Granted. But how many SDBs will it be able to truck?
Believe me, I'm not saying 30 more years. I'm just a wee civilian enthusuast.
Morale is everything in infantry war. Infantry whose morale is broken get killed. A-10s, from what I've heard from what veterans I know, are something that will very quickly save your ass by psychologically breaking the opposition and heartening every good guy who hears the BRRRRRT. That's not a factor to be underestimated, and bomb trucks that can loiter are something that it never hearts to have more of in this day and age.
>>29911617
>the F35 is over priced
I wouldn't call slightly north of 100 million if you include the engine, "overpriced." For the capabilities it brings, it's cheap. The F-22, which has similar and in some cases inferior capabilities, save for superior maneuverability, speed, and acceleration, cost nearly twice as much.
>>29916230
>The whole selling point of the F-35 is the fucking LO.
It is like you stopped paying attention a decade ago.
Stealth isn't really the big game changer, it's a necessity now. The big game changer is the huge pile of passive sensors, sensor fusion, and data sharing that turns it into a mobile data gathering monster.
>When we (Crew chiefs) find defects in the paint Lockheed loses their goddamn minds and have to call LO shop out to fix it.
For some reason I strongly doubt you have ever been near an F-35, or personally know anyone who has been near an F-35.
>>29918005
>and bomb trucks that can loiter are something that it never hearts to have more of in this day and age
So the F-35, or any aircraft currently used for CAS.
>>29917883
>no argument
>no argument
>incorrect statement (see pic)
>
>Irrelevant assertation
What kind of MAWS does the Su-35 even have? It's listed as Khibiny-M but I'm pretty sure thats just an ECM pod.
>>29918075
fuck
>>29918041
Indeed. Hence why I could see a Thunderbolt II if not the AQ-10 I would so very love to see.
>>29911187
If you want to outfit your F-35 with anti-ship missiles, then you've got two options: JSM and LRASM. The JSM, or Joint Strike Missile, is an evolution of the Norwegian NSM (Naval Strike Missile). The JSM is small enough to fit inside the internal weapons bay of the F-35 and it has an operational range over 160 nm. The other option is the LRASM, or Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile. The LRASM is an anti-ship cruise missile developed by DARPA specifically for the US Navy. This missile is too big to fit inside the internal weapons bay of the F-35, so it must be carried externally. However, the LRASM is designed to be stealthy itself so its effect on the F-35's RCS will be minimal and it has and operational range of 500 nm.
>>29918110
IMO from the recent revelations on distributed lethality, it looks very likely that both LRASM and some for of NSM are going to be taken, the later in modular box launchers for LCS and other ships. Whether that's going to be JSM is yet to be seen.
.02
>>29918145
And we know that NSM's are being fitted to LCS this year.
>>29918176
And Block IV Tomahawk is also imminent. It's a really bad time to be a Russian naval enthusuast.
>>29918277
Has there ever been a good year for that? I feel like we'd need to go all the back to Imperial Russia to find a time when the Russian Navy was really a force to be reckoned with.
>>29918304
Truth, but it was the best I could come up with. The Chinese are in the midst of extremely ambitious modernization, so they have very little to be ashamed of. Maybe their neonatal carrier presence.
>>29918075
>Requesting an argument against a nonsensical claim
>Failing to understand the point
>Failing to realise that +/-90 means 180
>It becomes irrelevant as soon as implemented on my favourite toy
Probably the same "SOER" thing the MiG-35 uses. It can be seen on pretty much any picture of it. Also,
>The aircraft's electronic warfare suite includes a radar warning system, radar jammer, co-operative radar jamming system, missile approach warner, laser warner and chaff and flare dispenser.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su-35/
>>29911187
completely irrelevant but this was ripped from Fark lol
>>29918346
the F/A-18E/F's RCS is well documented
AMRAAM > AA-12/PL-12. documented kills against targets and continuous improvements from the A to the current D.
>>29918346
You're right about the OLS-35 search FOV, it's weird that there's no info on the MAWS anywhere.
Comparing the lack of combat experience for the R-77 to the F-35 is pretty retarded though. The R-77 has been in service for like 20 years and hasn't been fired in anger. Meanwhile, last year a frontline Russian Su-24 took an AMRAAM up its ass and, according to its pilot, never even got a missile launch warning.
Su-35 is a fine aircraft, it's just inferior to the F-35 in the most important aspects.
>>29918430
I am yet to see this "well documented" 0.1 square metre ASH RCS figure.
>AMRAAM > AA-12
Keep dreaming.
>PL-12
Who gives a fuck about gooks?
>continuous improvements from the A to the current D
So just like R-77.
>>29918489
Considering that China is the other major military power, everyone who matters. If Russia doesn't care, that only means Russians are too stupid and drunk to care.
>>29918489
Look, you can claim that the AA-12 is better than the AIM-120. We, on the other hand, have proof of the AMRAAMs capability in real world environments against contemporary aircraft.
Fucks Fencers and Fulcrums
>>29918489
not ASH. just regular super bug.
>>29918610
Post sauce, I wanna see him eat his fucking mouse.
Pic related, Mr Sink yo Ship.
>>29918017
>Stealth isn't really the big game changer, it's a necessity now. The big game changer is the huge pile of passive sensors, sensor fusion, and data sharing that turns it into a mobile data gathering monster.
I love it every time that thing I wrote gets reposted.
>>29918673
If there's anything 4chan has taught me is that if you keep your ears open, the truth has its way of getting around.
>>29918477
>it's weird that there's no info on the MAWS anywhere
It's called "SOAR", not "SOER". You can see it on the pic related in the bottom right corner.
>The R-77 has been in service for like 20 years and hasn't been fired in anger.
That's because during the missile's entire service Russia was not at war with a country with air force.
>Su-24
Oh boy, here we go again. Su-24 is a Cold War frontline bomber, it only has an RWR aimed in the upper hemisphere because it was intended for supersonic flight under the radar.
>took an AMRAAM
AIM-9.
>never even got a missile launch warning
From what? It's an IR guided missile.
>Su-35 is a fine aircraft, it's just inferior to the F-35 in the most important aspects.
Firstly, the original point was about the price. Secondly, it's not. Don't even get me started on stuff like fuel, range, t/w, etc.
>>29918559
>you can claim that the AA-12 is better than the AIM-120
That's not what I'm saying, dumbass.
>against contemporary aircraft
The most modern aircraft it ever shot down were Serbian MiG-29. As in 9.12 MiG-29. Again, I'm not saying it's a bad record.
>>29918666
I am somehow convinced he will either not be able to at all, or will post something like a random forum post or a designated metal golf ball unit calculation.
>>29918840
Fuck you, order of magnitude is just fucking fine for RCS.
>>29918489
>AMRAAM > AA-12
>Keep dreaming.
For the sake of discussion name a measure in which the R-77-1 is superior to an AIM-120C or D.
>>29918974
For one it cant easily be lured by flares
And two its much faster
>>29918840
>Secondly, it's not. Don't even get me started on stuff like fuel, range, t/w, etc.
What was the combat radius of both aircraft again?
>>29918974
For the sake of common sense, other mathematical symbols except for the strict inequality do exist.
>>29919087
1,580 km and 1,158 km.
>>29919031
>radar missile
>lured by flares
>Especially the newer one that can be launched without lock and guided by two-way link until inside NEZ
>>29919031
Interesting. I didn't know an INS/radar guided missile could be effected by flares, or that a mach 4 missile was faster than a mach 4 missile.
>>29919111
>Using relative distance instead of fixed angular nmi
>>29911187
oyyy veyy!
I just wish there was a way to remove these software bugs!
>>29919091
Did you have anything to contribute or did you just feel the need to chime in?
>>29919172
>When an American around me tries to advocate non-mertic units
Every fucking time.
>>29911552
>muh goalposts!
>>29919188
I'm the same anon and I am telling you that other mathematical symbols except the strict inequality do exist. These missiles are virtually identical in roles and consequentially in characteristics too.
>>29919111
Where did you get 1580km for the Su-35?
>>29919247
>These missiles are virtually identical in roles and consequentially in characteristics too
Except they are not.
>>29919207
>Advocating the international standard unit for both maritime and aviation due to its universal translatability as a minute of latitude is advocating non-metric
Stay stupid, I guess. BIPM considers it a valid international standard unit of measure.
>>29919259
>Дaльнocть пoлeтa c мaкcимaльнoй зaпpaвкoй тoпливa, км: 1580
http://www.knaapo.ru/products/su-35/
>>29919281
Except they are.
>>29918840
>That's because during the missile's entire service Russia was not at war with a country with air force.
Except Georgia
>Su-24 shot down by AIM-9X
I'm seeing carrying reports, it was in originally reported to be an AIM-120. If you have any confrimatory statements from turkey that it was a sidewinder I'd be interested.
>original argument was price
My post compared it to contemporary aircraft (IE: modern western multiroles) the Su-35 is built on an upgraded Su-27 airframe and isn't western.
>range, t/w, etc...
F-35 has a range of 2,220 km on internal fuel, not too bad. T/w is no longer important, as are sustained turn rates and other ACM stats.
>most modern aircraft it shot down were Mig-29s.
So, variants of aircraft still in active service in Russia?
All RCS numbers are estimates, nobody gives out hard numbers. SU-35 is "%50 frontal RCS" of Su-27 which has a known RCS of 15m^2. SH has claims "at least %50 frontal RCS" of legacy hornet.
It's pretty easy to see which one is smaller
>>29919295
>range with a maximum refueling
>>29919281
Both are +180km in range. Both are ~3.6 meters. Both are ~200 mm in diameter. AMRAAM is 25 -35 kg lighter. AMRAAM is Mach 4, AA-12 speed I cannot locate. Both have a 20ish pound warhead. I can go on.
>>29919294
>>29919207
you're actually both right.
NM is a fantastic unit and professionals the world over a fond of it.
the retardation lies in the US still employing Imperial for everyday use, when it's simply inferior for everyday applications. the only people who like it are Americans who are so contrarian to logic that they don't even know they're being contrarian.
>>29919311
>missiles with significantly different ranges are the same
>>29919327
20ish kg, rather.
>>29919327
I have a difference
>one has shot down enemy aircraft.
>>29919354
180+ km vs 200+ km is not significant.
>>29919361
An Internet for you, sir.
>>29919327
>Both are +180km in range.
The PD model was canned over a decade ago, AA-12 has a ~110km range.
>>29919365
110km vs 180+km is significant
>>29919412
Even better. Got a figure for AA-12 top speed?
>>29919421
Mach 4 is what I see, but it looks like a number that has been regurgitated since the 90's without a proper source.
>>29919315
>Georgian Air Force
Do you realise they literally operate nothing but Su-25, right? I won't even ask you to name an air combat that has occurred back then because it is known that there weren't any.
>>29919315
>I'm seeing carrying reports, it was in originally reported to be an AIM-120. If you have any confrimatory statements from turkey that it was a sidewinder I'd be interested.
Never ever saw anyone implying it was AIM-120.
http://www.milliyet.com.tr/25-milyon-dolarlik-ucagi-100-bin-gundem-2153302/
>My post compared it to contemporary aircraft (IE: modern western multiroles)
No, the post literally said "Cheaper unit price than all contemporary and comparable multiroles".
>F-35 has a range of 2,220 km on internal fuel, not too bad
At which altitude?
>T/w is no longer important
Lol.
>as are sustained turn rates and other ACM stats
Like speed, payload, wing loading. Yeah, right...
>So, variants of aircraft still in active service in Russia?
No, so export 9.12 that not even USSR operated, let alone Russia that nowadays only operates 9.17 and 9.31/47 MiGs IIRC.
>SU-35 is "%50 frontal RCS" of Su-27
Riveting tale, chap.
>SH has claims "at least %50 frontal RCS" of legacy hornet
Not sure about the Hornets, but I am somehow convinced you are now simply pulling random nonsense out of nowhere just for the sake of arguing.
>>29919322
With maximum internal fuel.
>>29919412
>>29919417
80 km (R-77), 110 km (R-77-1), >200km (K-77M)
AIM-120A/B: 55–75 km, AIM-120C-5: >105 km, AIM-120D (C-8): >160 km
>>29919497
What does H=0, M=0,7 and Hкp, Mкp mean then?
I can tell Пepeгoнoчнaя дaльнocть c 2 х ПTБ-2000, км is the ferry range with 2 drop tanks.
>>29919566
H=0 is flight altitude, as in "sea level". M=0,7 is speed in Mach. "Hкp, Mкp" are cruise figures, as in the most efficient latitude and speed.
>>29919566
https://translate.google.com/translate?ie=UTF-8&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.knaapo.ru%2Fproducts%2Fsu-35%2F
>>29919525
>K-77M
>in service
>in service and usable on the Su-35
By those numbers the current in use R-77 has comparable range to mid 90's model AMRAAM.
>>29919601
If google translate explained what those numbers meant I would not have had to ask, it already had errors with the technical terms >>29919322
>>29919616
Yeah, like AIM-120D is operated in huge numbers. The R-77 in the current service is the same as the most of AIM-120 in the current service.
>>29919671
You do know that Russia does not actually have very many R-77's right?
>>29919671
it's comparable to the AIM-120C5/7?
>>29919711
It is comparable to the C5, not the C7 or D.
>>29919710
No, the issue is that they have simply too many R-27. It's the same story with bombs. They do produce and use precision guided munitions, but it's just too much cheaper to exploit free stockpiles of FABs left after the USSR.
>>29919837
many of the bombs the US are dropping are Vietnam vintage. we're just smart so we strap Paveway and JDAM kits to them. a GBU-10, GBU-31, and GBU-24 are all either a Mk 84 or a BLU-109, but one's Paveway II, one's a JDAM, and one's a Paveway III
>>29919497
>didn't go to war with a country that had an airforce
This country that you went to war with had an airforce
>ground attack planes don't count because I say so
Ok
Many news outlets in the U.S. Reported that it was an AIM-120(C I think)
>thinking WVR combat stats still matter.
Please see re-read >>29916556
The hornet number was incorrect, it refers to the reduction from the SH to the ASH. The number for Su-35 RCS is accurate.
I gaurentee you that a any single engine jet fighter with 18klb of fuel will have a longer range than any twin engine jet fighter that has 25klb fuel. That's basic shit. It'll become an even larger gap if ADVENT is implemented.
>>29911371
Is it fun being a fighter pilot?
How did you get perfect genes?
>>29911569>>29911552
No one is gonna use nukes unless one side gets sufficiently far into the opposing side's homeland.
Even then, they'll just threaten, there will be a peace treaty, and the nation that lost will be fucked over trying to rebuild for decades.
>>29911768
Never ever heard of the A-10 getting shot down in significant numbers in GF. I've read shitloads on the A-10. Gimme some links or you're a fucking faggot.
>>29912191
NEVER EVER SHIT ON MY PLANEFU
I GOT A SIGNATURE FROM AN F-22 PILOT, WHICH MEANS I'M MORE ATTUNED TO IT'S USEFULNESS THAN YOU
>>29920008
http://mackenzieproductions.com/Gen._Horner.html
Nay, my good man.
It is YOU who are the faggot
>>29919945
>During the August 2008 war with Russia, Georgian aircraft were initially active, but were soon grounded by Russian air superiority
Do you realise that a missile can not receive any combat record if the enemy is not using even the leftover you are trying to call air force here? My bad, should have said _functioning_ air force.
>Thinking that stats like t/w or wind loading only affect WVR combat and not the performance of the aircraft in general
>Thinking speed is a WVR combat stat
Right... whatever.
>The number for Su-35 RCS is accurate.
Riveting tale, chap.
>I gaurentee you
Sorry, I'm going to stick with actual figures provided by manufacturers, not "guarantees" of a random anon that keeps pulling random nonsense out of nowhere just for the sake of arguing.
