VF-17 confirmed for Brawl.
https://youtu.be/1Facg5eKBos?t=8
>>13947952
I was fighting with faggots in the comments about the F-35 for a while. In any case it's a whatever commercial, not much to talk about. We're going to have to wait a while for the US Gov't's 6th Gen requirements to flesh out. Till then, enjoy the same dumb planes for 40 years.
>>13947964
Don't modern Vipers outperform the F-35? I have an inkling the Super Hornets could do the same...
>>13947964
Behead those who insult the F-15C.
>>13947980
Got it a little backwards. 16As have the best kinematic performance. They got worse the fatter they got but they've been the GOAT single engine strike platform since Day 01 so it's mattered very little. The F-35 is an incremental improvement to late F-16s but the arguments are over whether the cost is justified or not. Personally, the AN/APG-81 and EO-DAS are the key factors in its superiority, but if the F-22 could mount those systems it would have every advantage the 35 does if it had external stores.
>>13948012
The costs should smooth out over time, the codebase for the 35 transitioned partially out of ADA into some variation of C from what I understand, which should translate to less difficulty acquiring coders for the next gen platform.
I'd love to see some numbers on the software cost end of things, I have my reasons to believe the ADA years weren't good to USDOD development because of how much that language failed to gain mainstream success. When every coder you pick up has to be trained in your language of choice, surely it adds up in the final cost.
I read something that suggests the F-22 is projected to outperform the Lightning at the end of its service.
Boeing has been shilling for a quick replacement to the F-35 to NATO countries over the past year, and they had a big meeting with Canadian officials either last week or the one before regarding the issue.
Defense plans had been keen on phasing out manned aircraft after the Lightning, but with the extension of the A-10's lifecycle due, in part, to the fuckups of the F-35, and Grumman and Boeing smelling blood, the F-35 might ironically be the plane that saves manned aircraft development.
>>13948166
>Semi-LO only F-22 never
If they'd just take the sensitive shit off, scrub the coating and sell it with external stores and an IRST ball it would sweep the market.
>>13948166
>they had a big meeting with Canadian officials either last week or the one before
I thought America's hat couldn't afford fancy planes?
>>13947980
F-16 is a more mature airframe that has had its limitations pushed and tactics developed for decades. The F-35 is still in the phase where they're still writing the textbook for its tactics as they're finding out what it can do. A report from a Norwegian test pilot who has had experience with the F-16 said that the F-35 climbs faster and has more responsive controls which potentially lets the F-35 be more aggressive in a dogfight.
Of course the main strength of the F-35 will be it's electronics and BVR weaponry. It should be able to get shots off on the enemy before it can even be engaged in a dogfight
>>13948201
>get shots off on the enemy before it can even be engaged in a dogfight
Which, wasn't that the purpose of the Phoenix missiles on the early Tomcats?
>>13948221
For bombers.
it's important to remember that the technology doesn't suck dog cock anymore, however. During Serbia while the kills weren't generally made at BVR ranges, they were killed at long-distance visual range using the BVR doctrines. Desert Storm was a similar turkey shoot but visual confirmation was still necessitated (partly due to the bird you just posted having outmoded IFF equipment).
Today's fully digital weapons systems and CCD based optical guidance makes considerations like that moot in the air these days. If it flies it can be locked up. AESA is some crazy shit.
The Phoenix missile and the fire controls bound to it date from the mid fifties at their earliest versions.
>>13948221
For bombers. And WVR kills are even more ludicrous now, with all-aspect missiles like the AIM-9X.
>>13948200
Can't speak for Northrop-Grumman, but Boeing at least is planning to massively undercut the buy cost of the Lightning II.
>>13948201
>over the horizon kill
One of the big concerns now is that the PAK FA and J-20 may've been built with avionics suites that neuter that aspect of the F-35 from hacking and leaks. I don't know enough about their constructions, but purportedly, these foreign jets are putting more emphasis on bringing back dogfighting by undercutting the efficacy of air to air missiles.
Someone from /k/ feel free to correct me on anything though, I'm just /sci/
>>13948253
>>13948343
Thanks for the info guys
>>13948381
Like seriously, putting the AIM-9X into Ace Combat would be OP as fuck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ
>>13948402
That looks OP as fuck senpai. Though I always feel bad about those F-4s being bullied for tests.
>>13948369
PAK FA has the radar cross section of a F-18 and the J-20's engines don't do it any favors for stealth because the Chinese still can't figure out how to build good jet engines by themselves. Their electronics are still behind the curve. They're better in their conventional roles, but Stealth Fighters they are not.
>>13948369
ATA missiles have reached the point where it is basically impossible to out-maneuver them. I don't think that's what they're going for.
>>13948434
Yeah, if I remember correctly, they basically were in favor of ditching the "stealth doctrine" entirely and relying on more robust electronic warfare packages and closer ranged engagements.
The J-20 doesn't intrigue me as much, but the PAK FA looks like it could be a pretty interesting attempt at making air combat...cooler.
I still feel like this should be made instead of the F-35
>>13948548
It really really should have been.
>>13948012
>The F-35 is an incremental improvement to late F-16s but the arguments are over whether the cost is justified or not.
Even if the cost was justified (it isn't), it's not an improvement over existing platforms:
>Even in the final "3F" software version, the F-35 will lack ROVER, in spite of having close air support as one of its primary missions.
ROVER (Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver) is a platform that allows forward air controllers (the guy on the ground telling the pilot where to shoot) to see what the aircraft is seeing. Even Tomcats were carrying them on pods during the early stages of the Afghanistan mission on 2001.
And that's one thing. I could write a whole fucking essay arguing how the JSF is an insufficient close air support platform, especially compared to the A-10 (which is supposed to replace and the USAF cannot wait until it finally gets rid of the Hog).
>>13948580
>no sources
Could've fooled me, Pierre.
>>13948587
http://aviationweek.com/awin/stealth-curbed-uncertainty-over-acquisition-and-support-costs
>Missing from the baseline Block 3F service-entry standard is compatibility with Rover (remote video receiver) systems, which is essential for close air support. (Rover did not exist when the F-35 requirement was written.)
You were saying? Also...
>The F-22 can transmit only non-stealth voice radio outside the normal four-ship unit, while the F-35's Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) will not talk to F-22s, and the aircraft will have non-LPI Link 16 for communication with other aircraft.
>>13948580
>it's not an improvement over existing platforms
>>13948548
>make another air superiority fighter when we already have a perfectly good one
Are you retarded?
SPREYY LMAO
>>13948622
Wrong board. This isn't >>>/s4s/
>>13948607
>make another multi-role fighter when we already have a perfectly good one
>make another close air support fighter when we already have a perfectly good one
>>13948627
>S4's
>not sss - Shit Sprey Says
Did you come here to contribute to the thread, or just to spam nonsense?
>>13948644
>comparing an F-22 to an F/A-18/F-16
Let me repeat this one more time.
Are you retarded?
just wait until every jet looks the same!
>>13948644
>make another close air support fighter when we already have a perfectly good one
Yeah, but not for long. USAF will begin phasing out the A-10 next year, in order to fully retire all the squadrons by 2022. Why? So they can use those resources (budget and manpower) for the fucking F-35.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/02/17/despite-2022-deadline-air-force-wants--10-squadrons-go-away-sooner/80501106/
>>13948704
Which is still painstakingly retarded.
>>13948700
>think I'm comparing the F-22 to the F-18/F-16 bros
It's like you can't even read
>>13948704
What did Georgia need two dozen warthogs for?
>>13948729
Can you think of a reason why wouldn't need two dozen warthogs?
>>13948704
>BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTT is die
pls no
>>13948666
>not 'Shit SpreyySez'
>>13948765
BRRRT is worthless, the aerial equivalent of the katana, overhyped, misunderstood, and pretty useless overall.
There is literally nothing you can accomplish with a 30mm cannon that you cannot do with a 25mm cannon.
>>13948792
You can't look as cool with a 25mm cannon
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/norwegian-pilot-counters-leaked-f-35-dogfight-report-422552/
>>13948221
I thought the F-14 was basically an ICBM interceptor that could also perform reasonably well as a fighter.
>>13948792
>hating on the closest thing to enuff dakka
>>13948804
>but it looks cool xDDDDDDD
Anyways, the A-10 being retired is a sound decision, as the proliferation of decent MANPAD tech amongst even the poorest of nations has rendered low n' slow CAS an extinct animal. Lest we forget, the A-10 is an aging airframe, and cost of maintenance is going to go up and up until it is no longer economical, or even safe, to fly them.
>>13948810
Fucking 35, you cash-strapping whore, stop lewding your juniors!
>>13948792
A massive part of the A-10's appeal is the morale factor.
It's massively popular because "it sounds like victory", at least that's what all my army friends say.
>>13948842
>army vet here.
Yeah, the engine whine and brrrrrtttt are wonderful things to hear.
What the Gau-8 can do to a truck full of Iraqi insurgents. Even senior NCOs that have been in combat multiple times, get queasy
>>13948850
thank you for your service
>>13948850
Obligatory seemingly empty thanks for serving post.
>>13948838
The AIM-9X shows that the Itano Circus is possible in real life.
>>13948820
No, it's a bomber interceptor.
ICBMs by their nature are interception resilient.
>>13948860
Soon.
>>13948827
http://www.defensetech.org/2015/01/02/a-tale-of-two-gatling-guns-f-35-vs-a-10/
According to this the A-10s GAU-8 carries more rounds and therefore can BRRRRRRT for longer
>>13948580
>I could write an essay
Could you give us the cliff notes?
>>13948876
How goes their development on the stealth external stores anyway? I was reminded of that by the Ace Combat 7 trailer.
>>13948946
The F-18 ASH should still be a thing, right?
I'm not the biggest fan of the tumor pod they had going on with it, but eh not everyone can make tumors blend elegantly into an airframe like with the Strike Eagle.
>>13948961
Not a fan of the ASH. Still prefer the Rhino or the Growler.
I was talking about the pod on this Osean Raptor, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zuBSUJfpBk
>>13948980
Yeah but off top of head I was sure that pod was based off the ASH weapons pod.
>>13948920
That article ignores the fact that the A-10 fleet is middle aged and that the GAU-8 is overkill for soft targets and won't do shit against most hard targets.
New builds of pic related would be the Superior BRRRRRRTTTTT plane
While the stock 4 x 7.62 GPMG don't pack much punch, you don't need a lot of wham to kill unarmored insurgents. For larger BRRRTTS a 30mm Gun Turret could be carried. Bigger booms can be achieved via rockets, hellfires, or calling in a jet. All this on a durable, low cost, easy to maintain aircraft with lulzy STOL performance. Still mad that the planes for new builds were axed.
>>13949189
>tfw COIN is the new CAS
>>13949197
>counter insurgency is the new close air support
por que
>>13949223
err, I mean, COIN planes making a comeback and taking over the role of newer CAS planes.
>>13949240
but drones already did that.
>>13949189
You don't understand the American military industrial complex anon.
All those US politicians have been bribed and have to consider that there are factories in their constituency.
The US has to spend billions on preparing for a conventional war with Russia/China whether it wants to or not. Cost is irrelevant.
>>13949189
I'd love to see some big BRRRRRRT on an Attack Copter, like a GAU-22
>>13949258
I understand the Military Industrial Complex, which actually just makes me even madder. Because the program the OV-10x was proposed for (Light Attack / Armed Reconnaissance) saw the typical American procurement process of contracts being cancelled and reawarded several times because a congressman wants jobs in their district. It eventually went to Super Tucano. I'm of the belief that Boeing could have probably have won the contract if they'd pushed OV-10X as much as Beechcraft pushed the AT-6. But no, they've got juicier contracts so they didn't give a shit about the LA/AR program.
Do you guys think if Boeing had won the JSF contract it would end up as enormous of a shitshow as the F-35 program is right now?
>>13947952
The entire F-35 project wouldn't be such an expensive clusterfuck if the US still knew how to procure new war machines. The whole thing is really just an exercise in giving as much money as they can get away with to friends in high places.
I know the plane is going to be operational eventually(and by operational I mean 'can actually be used to wage war', not just IOC), since the engineers working on this project are intelligent people, even if the people giving them their orders aren't. It's just depressing how corrupt the whole thing is.
>>13949351
if there was ever a more correct decision the military has gone with, it was to go with Lockmart over Boeing for the JSF program.
The X-32 was plainly inferior in almost all departments compared to the X-35, add the fact that Boeing didn't even have a prototype ready on time, it was a nobrainer.
>>13949351
Frankly, yeah.
Neither of these past two administrations have been good about handling defense contractors well.
Look at Boeing and the border security debacle.
>>13949351
Yeah, the whole program was a mistake.
>>13949351
X-32 is cute!
CUTE
U
T
E
Wait what the fuck, is this a real commercial for a real something or is it something related to Ace Combat 7?
>>13949050
Boeing was a part of the Raptor team. The Raptor also had EWP but they never made it past design stage.
>>13949423
It just wants to serve for senpai
>>13949240
>>13949255
GAU-8 Reaperhogs when?
>>13949423
Will you protect this smile /m/?
>>13950324
>Why is Raptor-San eating so much?
>Shut the fuck up and keep your head down Silent Eagle-Kun, if we're lucky he won't come over here and bother us.
>>13948792
>There is literally nothing you can accomplish with a 30mm cannon that you cannot do with a 25mm cannon.
Perhaps. But until you can stick a GAU-12/GAU-22 inside an airframe with >1,200 rounds in it, then the A-10 fulfills a niche that no other aircraft anywhere can do.
>>13949189
At least you acknowledge that slow-moving aircraft and cannons have a role in the battlefield. There are morons out there who believe that Small Diameter Bombs can do the exact same role, without even knowing what CEP means, that any pilot worth its salt would rather trust what the pipper in front of him is telling him to shoot, or even the fact that each GBU-39 is a quarter of a million each, and the F-35 can only carry 8 of them in its inner bays. Meanwhile...
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/munition-cost-11-1.htm
>30mm HEI - $24.75
APIs are even cheaper at $20 per round, so a fully loaded GAU-8 is about $23,000. At about 15 "trigger pulls" per full loadout, each destroyed target is a little over $1,500
>>13948827
>as the proliferation of decent MANPAD tech amongst even the poorest of nations has rendered low n' slow CAS an extinct animal
"Oh, so let's retire each and every helicopter in existence, then!". And, for the record, no A-10s have been ever shot down with MANPADs ever. After Iraq and Libya, the threat posed by MANPADs has been utterly exaggerated.
>the A-10 is an aging airframe, and cost of maintenance is going to go up and up until it is no longer economical, or even safe, to fly them.
Flying the Hog is so cheap that such an scenario is not contemplated to happen until the 2050s or so.
>>13949469
Answer me
When will laser weapons replace missiles/bullets for dogfights?
>>13951547
Not for awhile Anon. Mainly due to size, weight and shit like that. Remember, last effective laser weapon to be flown was stuffed into the nose of a 747.
>>13951573
Doesn't the USAF have one that fits in a C-130? Also if I recall correctly, the YAL-1 wouldn't very effective. It's laser lacked the range necessary to destroy IRBMs from outside hostile airspace, and deploying it would have required multiple aircraft flying 24/7.
>>13951589
It got shit canned anyway but yeah I remember there were quite a few limitations with it. Cool concept just not very practical.
>you'll never have a plane with nose art by motherfucking Nagano
>>13951535
It's a defense contractor CG fluff piece.
>>13947964
Damn. Sorry for derailing the thread. I was defending the F-35 but I wanted to get it out of the way at the start so we could talk about future planes. Like I said before, no matter how good it is, it still means that we aren't getting any cool new next-Gen designs for a long time and thus Macross will remain a dream.
>>13951819
>I was defending the F-35
What? Why?
That piece of garbage has proven, again and again, to be utterly worthless compared to each and every aircraft it is supposed to replace (F-16, F-18, A-10, Harrier, Tornado). The only reason everyone is going ahead with it is that all the involved partners have sunk about a trillion dollars in it.
>>13952641
If anything, it at least looks good. (though still not as good as a Viper)
>>13952674
>>13952663
>>13952656
>>13952653
>>13952647
>>13952678
Oh, fuck off. You can have "awesome footage" of anything (even the ugly-ass Bronco was carrier-borne at some point). That doesn't change the fact that the JSF was a bad idea that its realization only makes it worse.
>>13952689
>2011
Give something more recent you fucking mongoloid.
>>13952708
Most of the problems in the images are inherent to the aircraft's design. Date (which, by the way, is dated to 2004) has jack shit to do with the fact that the A and C models have 2,000 lbs of dead weight, or that its stealth design is outdated against more modern threats, or that the engine exhaust burns the paint off the tail surfaces.
>Aerospace version of Herpes
'nuff said.
>>13952733
Alright, you've made your point. Where does that 2000 extra pounds come from?
I wish we had someone like Dragon here to correct you mongoloids.
>>13952766
On the B it's the added mass of the lift fan and other fancy VSTOL features. (The lift fan also cuts out a decent chunk of the fuel supply)
On the C it's beefier landing gear, a tail hook and a larger folding wing. (The larger wing also allows for an increased fuel supply)
Seeing as those are needed for the B and C to do their job I'd hesitate to call them dead weight.
>>13952689
Bronco isn't ugly. Also her ability to operate of off LHDs wasn't by design but was due to the lulzy stol performance she needed to operate from rough forward airstrips. It's also irrelevant to F-35 V/STOL operations
Fuck off Pierre.
>symbolism
>>13952733
>engine exhaust burns the paint off the tail surfaces.
99% sure that was either overblown from a one-time thing or it was fixed.
ITT: Nobody old enough to remember the development cycle of legacy fighters
Everything you're hearing about the F-35 has been said about EVERY SINGLE FIGHTER WHOSE DICK YOU ARE CURRENTLY SUCKING. EAGLE AND VIPER INCLUDED.
>>13952849
Even the F-22 development cycle wasn't this bad senpai, it was bad, but not this bad
>>13952845
>All planes, we're going to take back Gracemeria today!
>>13947952
What is this? A /k/ thread on /m/? Is that allowed?
#squadgoals
Could the Jolly Rogers' skull and crossbones make the F-35 a more beautiful plane? Will there even be a VFA-103 by the time the F-35 is deployed for use on carriers?
>>13952930
Just add some gun pods. Gun pods make everything look more beautiful.
>>13952930
The skull bones have existed across like three different iterations so far, even if 103 dies there'll always be another squadron to take up the mantle.
>>13952864
but lockheed martin has been exceptionally transparent.
it has to be, this is a multinational project.
>>13952824
The F135 engine's design, which is designed for maximum commonality for all three versions. >>13952766 is utterly wrong in his analysis. He's mixing it up with the weight differences between versions, not a baseline already present in the prototype.
>>13952847
>99% sure that was either overblown from a one-time thing or it was fixed.
Wrong on both counts:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/joint-strike-fighter-lockheed-martin
>When the time came to cover the F-35 with a radar-absorbing material, Lockheed changed its technology, covering the plane with a rigid coating applied in sections. Unfortunately, prolonged use of the plane’s afterburners causes the F-35’s stealthy outer layer—as well as the skin underneath—to peel and bubble near the tail. As a result, the F-35 is prohibited from supersonic flight while Lockheed Martin comes up with a fix—one that will require retrofitting the 78 planes that have already come off the production line. “Everyone knows that the faster a plane goes, the warmer the skin gets. All they had to do was test a one-square-foot portion in an oven. Yet again, we’re finding this stuff out on planes that are already built.”
>When asked how two signature elements of the same program—stealth and supersonic speed—could have come into such direct collision, a senior Pentagon official with access to F-35 test data explained, “This is not rocket science. When you let a contractor do whatever he wants to do, and you don’t watch him very carefully, he’s going to trust his engineering analysis as opposed to doing what you just said—building a piece and putting it in an oven. Because he looks at a piece of paper and he’s got his engineers and he says, ‘Oh, this is good; we’ve got margin there. We’ve got an extra 10 degrees and an extra five minutes on the coatings. We’re good. We don’t have to test that.’ Government oversight would say, ‘Show me.’”
>>13952689
Fuck you, I'll post more.
>>13952955
So there's a chance we'll see some skull and crossbones on a valkyrie?
Can someone explain what makes the F-22 less of a valuable investment than the F-35? Is there potential for upgrading and improving these two planes for decades to come, or are they really limited by the hardware and software being integrated so tightly?
>>13952971
>>13952965
>All the sparks when landing
Is that normal?
>>13952920
I've heard people say that the reason the Air Force wants the A-10 out is because it's too grunty and doesn't suck the dick of the marshals who only want high-altitude strike fighters.
Is there any reason for the A-10 to exist now that we have heavier gunships?
>>13952973
The F-22 will get upgraded.
Its just the F-35 was built from the ground up to be easier to upgrade throughout its service life.
>>13952849
>ITT: Nobody old enough to remember the development cycle of legacy fighters
I've read about the development of the F-4 (it started as a mix-and-match F-3 Demon upgrade), F-16, F-22 and F-111 (also conceived as a common design for USAF and USN, much like the JSF). And NONE of them have been as much of a clusterfuck as the JSF. Any comparison is a gross exaggeration of the known facts.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1225.html
>>13952961
>Government oversight would say, ‘Show me.’”
Is this what Eisenhower meant by the military-industrial complex, where the government just buys shit without looking? Because seriously, they should be making the companies bear the cost of these mistakes.
>>13952864
>Even the F-22 development cycle wasn't this bad senpai, it was bad, but not this bad
The F-22 was less ambitious. Which is saying something because the F-22 was pretty damn ambitious. I honestly think the F-35's initial performance goals were simply not possible with current technology and that's a big part of why it took so long to get this point: because so much new technology had to be invented just to make it work.
The two biggest areas that seem to be causing trouble are:
1. Heat: the F-35's stealth coating seems to be very good at holding in heat which is great for cold environments, no so great for hot environments. The F-22 had its engines in the rear, kinda out of the way, whereas the F-35 has the engine right in the middle of everything so all the other parts of the plane are exposed to the heat more.
2. Programming: the F-35 is more software-intensive than any other previous fighter jet. All the various sensors are supposed to talk to each other and form a complete picture of the battlefield, drawing from data collected by OTHER F-35's. In terms of coding to make all that work, the thing is a monster. It will eventually get sorted out, but there is no way to rush it. The code is so complex that they needed to bring in engineers from NASA just to make sense of it.
They have until 2019 to get everything sorted out because that is when full-rate production is scheduled to begin. That should be enough time.
So I'm the guy that made these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyHlp7tJrxY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31oJIo8EVwY
>>13952864
It took just as long, went a similar amount overbudget, etc. They originally intended to buy 648 jets for $86.6 billion. In the end they acquired 195 jets for $66.7 billion.
>>13952847
That was indeed fixed.
>>13952689
From a quick glance, nothing on there still exists as an issue, except perhaps thermal management to a minor degree.
>>13952973
The software on the 22 is/was built on a rather niche programming language that no one but the DoD really uses.
Ada is a good language for plane software considering it's designed to enforce stability, but Ada never really caught on with the masses. It's like hunting down Cobol or Fortran coders, only old farts from a bygone generation are going to be intimate with these languages without training (which means dropping $$$).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrtxDdaWuM
>>13952981
>Is there any reason for the A-10 to exist now that we have heavier gunships?
The reason for wanted to retire the A-10 is budgetary. There is a lot of high-profile modernization projects going on right now and by the early 2020's they are all going to be cannibalizing each other for funding. The A-10 is an old plane that is easy to cut out of the budget. The company that made them doesn't even exist anymore.
>>13953010
>Fortran
I think my college offered classes in Fortran.
>>13952981
>Is there any reason for the A-10 to exist now that we have heavier gunships?
With "heavy gunships", I assume you mean the AC-130s. Unfortunately the USAF, in its infinite wisdom, only has those available for special forces. An officer tried to present the idea of making them widely available for grunts and got eaten alive by the upper brass.
(you need to block Javascript to bypass the paywall)
https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/04/a-pilot-speaks-the-usaf-is-harder-on-internal-ideas-than-it-is-on-evil-insurgents/
And no, not even those fully replace the versatility (can operate from poor landing strips, with a very low price for flight hour) and accuracy (pilot, pipper) of the A-10. It's too easy to make a mistake while shooting with a Spectre.
>>13953014
Well, can its role be fulfilled by other planes? It seems to have a morale effect in addition to being good at ground support.
>>13953026
>Well, can its role be fulfilled by other planes?
Its role died when the USSR died.
Technology has simply left low n slow gunruns behind.
>>13952992
With the F35 I believe the codebase leans more towards C++ which means acquiring programmers is comparatively easier.
Downside is that they need to make sure not to fuck things up, the RTOS they're using probably relies on Ada for core functionality with C code going on top for less life or death code but the thing about C is that it operates on the premise that the coder knows what they're doing and should have the freedom to do it however they want, -even if what they're doing is wrong.-
>>13953019
Ok I'm being a bit mean to Fortran, it still gets mileage with number crunchers.
But Cobol? If you're being hired to do Cobol shit, it's because you're an old fart and they need you to help with transitioning a software solution into something from the 21st century.
>>13953010
Yes and no - ADA is still commonly used in aviation, but the reason that the F-35 for example uses mostly C++ is because while there are plenty of programmers who can program a flight control system in ADA, the subset of those people that also done theses in optics, computer vision, RF phenomenon, etc is a lot smaller.
>>13953039
For what it's worth, the C++ they're using coding standards written specifically for the F-35 by Bjarne Stroustrup (the guy that invented C++).
>>13953009
>nothing on there still exists as an issue
Oh, really? Then why is it that the software is still a major headache for Lockheed? And, for the record, that's baseline software for the most basic combat missions. The platform's complexity and design doesn't allow for "growth", like the Eagle (Strike/Silent) or the Viper (Block 60). You can't even fit CFTs in it without taking a huge toll on the RCS, which IS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF THE JSF.
Speaking of stealth, the Australian study clearly mentions that the JSF was already an obsolete design a decade ago. How can that have been improved in any way? And I don't think the Chinks have been sitting idly all this time. The USAF's obsession with stealth is a huge handicap on capabilities.
>>13953056
Bjarne seems to have those JSF coding standards publicly available too.
>>13953036
Seems like >>13953020 would disagree with you.
>>13953072
>The USAF's obsession with stealth is a huge handicap on capabilities.
So why is everyone else trying to pursue stealth designs, like the chink J-20, and the russkie PAK-FA, the nip ATD-X, the gook KFX?
>>13953078
As I've said, we all know the problems that the F-35 has had with its software and bespoke helmet. What worries me is that, with all of the aircraft's systems dependent on software, the sheer complexity of the whole thing (24,000,000 lines of code!) is a disaster waiting to happen. And a pilot (or ground crew, for that matter) cannot debug a failing system during combat operations.
>>13953104
>he didn't read the coding guidelines
>>13953072
Because there's 4x as much code in the F-35 as the F-22, not including ALIS, which alone has about 8x as much code as the F-22.
>that's baseline software for the most basic combat missions.
All of the F-35's Block 3F code has been written, it's just been going through testing for some time now. Block 2B also incorporated most of the hard features in the code like multi-ship sensor fusion.
>The platform's complexity and design doesn't allow for "growth", like the Eagle (Strike/Silent) or the Viper (Block 60).
There's nothing about complexity that doesn't allow for growth; all of the avionics are modular; the proposed Advanced EOTS for example is a drop-out / drop-in upgrade for example.
>You can't even fit CFTs in it without taking a huge toll on the RCS
Says who? If you're designing CFTs properly they'll be verified to comply with the RCS profile of the jet. That said however, there's not much point in adding CFTs to the F-35; it already carries nearly 4x as much fuel as the F-16.
>Speaking of stealth, the Australian study clearly mentions that the JSF was already an obsolete design a decade ago.
That Australian study was written by smart people, but smart people who have zero non-public knowledge on the jet and who also happened to be attempting to make a profit - in case you're not aware, APA's authors own a small aerospace company in Australia and at the time, were trying to sell themselves as the primary contractor for the F-22 and an upgraded F-111 program.
>>13953104
Technically speaking they can debug the code; it's not unheard of for radar systems to crash on jets or for them to have other faults. When that happens, you either follow some procedure, or you just literally reboot it. Same goes for the F-35.
>>13953084
>the chink J-20, and the russkie PAK-FA, the nip ATD-X
Those are pure fighters, with a limited ground-attack capability. Same as F-22. Also, ATD-X is a proof of concept, not a "real" combat plane.
>the gook KFX
Public sources say it is designed to have an RCS lower than the Rafale, but still higher than the F-35. That is a lot more realistic than having a single-engined fighter-bomber, that can do STOVL, CAS missions AND have an RCS smaller than the F-117.
Stealth makes sense for interception, deep-strike bombing and SEAD/DEAD. Not close-air support. The US Army cancelled the Comanche for that same reason.
>>13953020
>Unfortunately the USAF, in its infinite wisdom, only has those available for special forces.
They are only viable in extremely permissive airspace.
>>13953167
Having a lower RCS is never a disadvantage. It would be very convenient to ignore stealth because it would make developing new aircraft MUCH easier but right now the benefits of low-observable design are just too big to risk losing out on.
>>13952877
1) That's an artist's rendition that has no bearing on the actual design
2) They're both from NG, so a better analogy would be like submitting an old project
>>13953157
>All of the F-35's Block 3F code has been written, it's just been going through testing for some time now.
Okay, point. But what about the bespoke helmets? Many pilots have complained of nausea and blind spots that the cameras cannot capture.
>There's nothing about complexity that doesn't allow for growth; all of the avionics are modular;
More bullshit. JSF doesn't have ROVER (essential for CAS). And adding it will take time and money, both of which the JSF has spent a lot of. Even something as basic as making the inner payload bays fit the Small Diameter Bomb is scheduled for 2022. How many years (and dollars) will it take Lockheed to design a ROVER targeting pod?
>Says who? If you're designing CFTs properly they'll be verified to comply with the RCS profile of the jet.
CFTs are designed by third-parties a lot of the time. And verifying RCS is so complicated that the USAF still operates the F-117s as baseline mannequins to measure RCS. CFTs fulfill the same role as drop-tanks, minus the toll on aerodynamics (which the JSF is already poor at, thanks to its compromise design for the STOVL role). Think of a flight plan for Israel bombing Iran's nuclear plants. I'm pretty sure that, at the moment it needs upgrades, some partner will say "Stealth? Screw that. I just want it to work".
>smart people who have zero non-public knowledge on the jet
That's your argument, then? "Trust Lockheed blindly". Balls.
All we've seen so far is a project that has had plenty of issues, billions thrown at and is years late, with deployment dates going further and further into the future. Even the current project lead at the Pentagon can see the deficiencies. Plain and simple, it's not going to be worth the hype or the money.Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to watch the GOP debate
>>13953020
>Unfortunately the USAF, in its infinite wisdom, only has those available for special forces.
There is a very good reason for that.
The AC-130 is basically the ultimate glass cannon. Tons of firepower, but very easy to take out if you have the proper weapons. A single Iraqi soldier, armed with a very simple, shoulder-fired missile launcher, was able to take out an entire AC-130 with 1 well-placed missile. This resulted in the deaths of 14 servicemen and of course the loss of a $190 million dollar aircraft. This is why the newest version of the AC-130 being developed replaces most of the guns with rocket launchers in hopes of allowing the aircraft to operate from a much higher (and safer) altitude. At the end of the day, the AC-130 is a niche aircraft for a niche role. It simply doesn't have the survivability to carry the front line.
![I_saw_where_the_F35-4085eb500cb809601fdfdc35971088cf[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ukbjDFk.jpg "I_saw_where_the_F35-4085eb500cb809601fdfdc35971088cf[1].jpg")
>>13952938
The F-35 has a very happy gunpod
>>13953223
An aircraft designed for CAS (covering grunts on the ground, with meters of difference between them and the bad guys) needs to emphasize on plenty of other things (survivability, maneuverability, stability, weapons load, loiter time) BEFORE stealth is even an option.
>>13953284
>>13953221
It would seem like A-10s fill a strategical gap since they can be deployed closer to where the combat is, and I'm guessing less maintenance hours than the AC-130. Can't get rid of the A-10 filling the skies with far noises
>>13953293
>It would seem like A-10s fill a strategical gap since they can be deployed closer to where the combat is
There are other air-frames that can do that. If you want something with a big gun that can get right up close and suppress the other side with its mere presence, then this is it.
>>13953291
So the F-16, F/A-18, and the B-1?
>>13953291
That sort of raises the question of how far can we possibly push stealth technology?
>>13953318
I guess they fill the same relative role with a different approach
>>13952877
That's like saying that Boeing's 787 team plagiarized from the 777, 757 and 737. There's nothing wrong with going with a layout you know will work rather than trying something radically different.
>>13953291
>survivability
>implying stealth isn't directly related to this
>implying you aren't fondling Pierre Sprey's wrinkled testicles as you post this bullshit armchair weapons procurement drivel of yours
>>13953330
There are advantages to using fixed wing aircraft over helicopters. However, those advantages apply to all fixed wings, not just the A-10.
>>13953332
Its better not to be hit than to be hit and (maybe) survive.
>>13953339
Those advantages largely being what sort of heavy ordinance you're certified to launch with.
Like those huge ass bunker busters that only the Strike Eagle seems qualified to take off with.
![jGVpDVf[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GNiQwXF.jpg "jGVpDVf[1].jpg")
>>13953265
>Okay, point. But what about the bespoke helmets? Many pilots have complained of nausea and blind spots that the cameras cannot capture.
The nausea issues were problems for the Gen 1 and Gen 2 helmets, but have been described as largely solved for the Gen 3 helmet. for blind spots, there aren't really any unless the enemy jet is extremely close (ie trying to ram you out of the sky), if you mean the physical blind spots, the recent blog post by Norway's senior F-35 pilot stated that he doesn't have the issue if just just leans forward when turning his head / twisting his body.
>More bullshit. JSF doesn't have ROVER (essential for CAS).
ROVER isn't essential for CAS; it's been done without ROVER for decades and even today much of CAS is performed using other comms systems. That said, ROVER will be added; furthermore, ROVER will be added without any physical modifications to the jet, as it's CNI system is a software-defined radio.
> Even something as basic as making the inner payload bays fit the Small Diameter Bomb is scheduled for 2022
That's only for the Small Diameter Bomb II (GBU-53), and only for the F-35B. The GBU-53 is still in development and the only bay modification required is to shift a bundle of wires and a hydraulic line a few centimeters - see the attached pic. Because the SDB-II isn't ready, they're waiting until it's design is finalised before modifying the B's bay in Block 4.
>CFTs are designed by third-parties a lot of the time.
Yes, but all modifications are required to go through the US JSF Joint Program Office, who have all of the necessary data and tools.
>"Trust Lockheed blindly".
Trust the militaries that are flying the jet; it's been pilots and brass for example, that have stated that the F-35 is *stealthier* than the F-22 in terms of radar RCS.
>billions thrown at and is years late, with deployment dates going further and further into the future.
$0 requested and zero net delays since the 2012 program revision.
>>13953265
>But what about the bespoke helmets? Many pilots have complained of nausea and blind spots that the cameras cannot capture.
The only reports of nausea I have seen are from people who use it for the first time and are unfamiliar with it.
>More bullshit. JSF doesn't have ROVER (essential for CAS).
>How many years (and dollars) will it take Lockheed to design a ROVER targeting pod?
ROVER is not essential for CAS and is already part of the upgraded EOTS that could be implemented as soon as block 4.
>Even something as basic as making the inner payload bays fit the Small Diameter Bomb is scheduled for 2022.
You are speaking about SDB IIs, which are not even in service yet.
>CFTs are designed by third-parties a lot of the time. And verifying RCS is so complicated that the USAF still operates the F-117s as baseline mannequins to measure RCS. CFTs fulfill the same role as drop-tanks, minus the toll on aerodynamics (which the JSF is already poor at, thanks to its compromise design for the STOVL role). Think of a flight plan for Israel bombing Iran's nuclear plants. I'm pretty sure that, at the moment it needs upgrades, some partner will say "Stealth? Screw that. I just want it to work".
You are completely sidestepping the fact that F-35's carry more fuel internally than F-16's do with CFTs and drop tanks.
>That's your argument, then? "Trust Lockheed blindly". Balls.
As opposed to blindly trusting an individual who stood to gain financially if Australia did not buy F-35s.
>>13953318
It's way easier to down a helicopter than it is to down an A-10.
>>13953403
Its way easier to down an A-10 than (insert multirole aircraft here).
>>13953408
No more brrrt for this one.
>>13953421
b-but muh titanium bathtub
>>13953408
Except multirole aircraft are much less efficient in ground attack roles since they have to also be good at high-altitude bombing, dogfighting, and interception.
>>13953439
Hey look, a time traveller from 1939.
>>13953439
What parts of those conflict?
>>13953446
>>13953448
You're trading off what your multirole aircraft could do instead for putting it on a ground attack role.
>>13953466
But give me an example - an F/A-18 for example can fly as slow or slower than an A-10, etc. Pretty much the only 2 things that make it better for CAS are a heap of gun ammo and armour, which aren't necessary if you use today's sensors to fight from slightly higher
>>13953466
Which is what?
>>13953403
Actually I'd peg them as about the same. The Helicopter does fly lower and slower, but at the same time their ability to fly hover let's them literally hide behind hills, buildings and even large trees. In a parity conflict the Apache would hide behind terrain a couple miles behind friendly lines and then pop out of cover for literally seconds to fire a missile whenever a scout helicopter saw an enemy tank. An A-10 on the other hand would be in full view of the enemy for he bulk of its attack run. It's an easier target to shoot at, even if it's able to take a few more punishment from enemy AA guns that high level of visibility is going to get it killed eventually. If the cold war had gone hot, the USAF expected that Soviet SPAAGs and Short range SAMs would have destroyed the entire A-10 fleet within two weeks.
>>13953473
What I mean is that you could be having your F-35 conducting strategic bombing runs on Raqqa and working with Russian MiGs while letting A-10s operate in close, instead of having one force doing both roles.
>>13953439
>Except multirole aircraft are much less efficient in ground attack roles
I'm sure that every person on the ground ever killed by an F-14D, F-18, F-16, F-15E, or F-4 will be pleased to hear about that.
>>13953483
But why does it have to be A-10's?
>>13953483
Why not Apaches?
>>13953483
Why do you think F-35's cannot do both roles?
>>13953483
I (here: >>13953448) was asking >>13953439 what aspects of being efficient in ground attack and dogfighting, etc conflict. I thought >>13953466 was saying that you get compromised capabilities with multiroles when put in ground attack roles. I >>13953473 then asked for a specific example instead of rhetoric.
>>13953502
We have fewer F-35s in service, splitting them up over two jobs at one time is inefficient because you don't get the concentration of firepower you need to be really effective, especially if we distrust our allies so much over our stealth tech that they're only based on aircraft carriers in the Gulf and Mediterranean rather than on-land, which means less time over the target.
>>13953517
we're getting something like 2,000 of them.
we also have plenty of F-16's, F/A-18's, F-15E's to cover the gap while production ramps up.
>>13953517
>>13953522
The other thing to remember too is that part of the reason that multiroles are so effective is that they can be re-tasked to apply concentration of force ('firepower') on the fly.
If there's 2 jets in an area, one an A-10, another an F-15C, and one of them doesn't have enough ammo to do their job, the other can't do anything about it. If both of those jets are F-35s, one can cease what it's doing (which could just be flying in circles waiting for orders or enemies) and help out the other, regardless of whether it's an air or ground threat.
>>13947952
Fuck the vf-17
Fuck the f-35.
Fuck the f-35 cock suckers.
The f-14 will always be the sexiest piece of flying machinery ever conceived by human hands. May god bless her soul in the eternal skies of heaven.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aRHLFUnVHo
>>13953561
fuck you
>>13951369
fuck no, i want more than just my Mk 1 eyeball to let me know that what i'm about to drop or fire on is the actual hajis and not a bunch of army dudes in a wadi
the A-10's MEZ vs SAMs (like SA-6's and up) is bigger just because it's slow as fuck and has no energy to cash in.
>>13953644
not to mention the A-10 has a history of blue on blue incidents
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/05/a-10-john-mccain-iraq-afghanistan/22931683/
>>13953104
as somebody who flies a legacy fighter for a living... i'd prefer the F-22 "this broke. here's the EP page from the checklist displayed on your MPD... the fix is turn it off then back on" method rather than having my systems GK tell me why a UTL B followed by a UTL A caution ought to have me in cold sweats.
>>13953354
they don't fit in B-1/B-2/B-52 bomb bays, vipers wouldn't get off the ground with one, warthogs can't carry them centerline and would be at huge risk for departure, and the navy never bought it.
and that's why the F-15E (and the F-111) carry the GBU-28
>>13953999
What fighter do you fly?
I'm surprised top gun types even browse 4chan, but then again, /k/ does have that NavalAviator tripfag.
>>13954018
F-15E
started posting before i joined up. usually a /k/ommando
>>13953564
Based on pure aesthetic, he isn't wrong. SR-71 is damn close, though.
>>13954024
not even in that category
the f22 beats it hands down
>>13954022
Strike Eagle's are pretty cool. One of the few planes that pull of the CFT's without looking ugly.
>>13954037
oh please that bulge between the wing and the intake looks like a fucking tumor
the advanced super bug pulls it better
>>13954042
Nigga she beautiful.
You're probably too low test to appreciate some curves.
Eagles are cool birds, don't care what anyone says. Though Vipers are still my planefu.
>>13954042
Overawing CFTs look like shit.
>>13954032
F-22 pales in comparison to YF-23. That said sexiest plane is pic related. Few aircraft will ever match her grace.
>>13954127
>YF-23
muh nigga
>>13954144
Sexy planes are sexy.
>>13954144
I wish there was more information on the YF-23. There would be if they'd picked it. I heard that it could hold way more missiles than the F-22 in spite of its slimmer profile: 3 heatseekers and 8 radar-guided as opposed to 2-6 for the F-22.
>>13954165
honestly they were both pretty damn good aircraft.
>>13954170
It's just hard to find information on the YF-23. Even the top speed doesn't seem to be well understood. The best you can get is engineers who worked on the project making vague statements like:
"Well.......it was fast! Like, really fast. I can't go into specifics........"
I read that the biggest reason that the F-22 was picked is that the YF-22 had functional weapon bays that were demonstrated for air force generals. They were able to take it up and hit targets out with it. The YF-23 just had some sort of place-holder......space for missiles but no functional doors yet. The officers naturally thought that the F-22 was the safer option because it was more complete, even though the F-23 would have been able to hold more theoretically.
>>13954198
it was also more maneuverable than the YF-23, if I recall, due to the TVC.
>>13954165
I'm unsure of the larger payload bay, but If I recall correctly it was faster and stealthier. At any rate the project was possibly doomed from the start. Northrop had the full ATB contract for 120 B-2s among other major projects and there Pentagon likes to spread contracts around. There's theories that the whole fly off was for show and Lockheed was the winner from the get-go. Such theories provide a decent explanation for some of the discrepancies between the YF-22 and YF-23's testing regimes,e.g. Both aircraft were fitted to carry weapons, but only the YF-22 saw live weapons testing.
>>13954198
Sounds more or less the same song and dance for the F-35 getting picked. It was more ready during the demonstration.
>>13954213
The TVC also gave the YF-22 better STOL performance, which was one of the USAF's early requirements for ATF.
>>13954225
Also, like the other anon said above, the X-32 was actually, genuinely shitty.
>yfw F-18 and F-16 could own the skies with thrust vectoring Macross Zero style
>>13954215
>but only the YF-22 saw live weapons testing.
Because only the YF-22 had functional weapons bays to test. The YF-23 just had a placeholder: space for missiles, but no functional doors.
>>13954239
>dumb shit like radar and stealth and cost-effective weaponry and combined arms are keeping us from full powerlevel dickwaving to create the ultimate dogfighters
Real life is so shitty.
>>13954239
A shame that they never took an image of those three with the TVC F-15.
>>13954278
I liked the earlier TVC nozzles.
Looked just like muh animes.
>>13954257
Humans can't survive anything above 9G's. Dogfighting peaking with lightweight fighters like the F-16 & F-20. Now it is all about trying to improve range, make the airframe more stealthy, improve situational awareness
>>13954278
Complete shame
>>13954321
Then we make the humans better. Or simply make the planes impart fewer Gs on the pilot.
>but that's not possible
FUCK YOU
>>13954127
>raises middle finger to XB-70
YOU KILLED JOE WALKER, YOU BASTARD!
>>13954347
>>13954376
It's not the planes fault that an F-104 crashed into it.
>>13954278
This thread needs more F-16XL
>>13954381
Your right, it was General Electric's fault that photo shoot even happened. As a result, Joe didn't get is astronaut wings until after his death.
>>13954383
I've got more F-16 VISTAs?
>>13954391
Dat ass
![f22_6_187[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/oUfDVaa.jpg "f22_6_187[1].jpg")
>>13954257
Ahem
Dogfighting is becoming less important due to radars and missiles getting so advanced that they can reliably kill things without it coming into visual range. It's all about who can get missiles off first
>>13954321
technically the maximum amount of g-force that a human has survived was 214G from an indy car crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVpux5JxqEk
>>13954438
Yes. I want all that shit to go away so...
Actually, I think I know why Sprey hates these programs. He just wants us to evolve our planes into Valkyries instead of using it on non-Macross shit.
>>13954438
>>13954423
LEWD
![f119_engine_2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HKaVGvP.jpg "f119_engine_2[1].jpg")
>>13954448
F-22 already has thrust vectoring
>>13954448
but sprey hates electronics.
he fough against the F-16 having an electronic gunsight.
>>13954452
Jesus H Christ
>>13954466
Is the F-16 one of the most successful export stories?
>>13954165
As I recall, the YF-23 was built in the image of a classical interceptor-type fighter.
Y'know, blitz out, light up Russkie bombers with AMRAAMs or something, then RTB. Sorta like what the Tomcat was for, but instead of expensive swing wing machinery you had expensive ablative tile linings for the engine troughs.
And if that was important to the ATF, then it'd be a plane I'm sure, but what was more important was coming up with a plan for the next generation of air superiority asset, preferably one that stayed a significant step ahead of where the Slavs were going when they shat out the Flanker. A mere interceptor wasn't going to cut it, you needed something that could shore up the difference against the Flanker's maneuvering game in the event of a merge, while also expanding on the Eagle's existing BVR capabilities.
>>13955170
I've never understood the difference between "interceptor" and "air superiority": it sounds like two different names for basically the same thing.
>>13955224
>I don't understand the difference between a sedan and a coupe
One stays put and the other is a gofast.
>>13955224
There's some overlap, but in the most classic sense the interceptor wants raw speed so it can get in range of its target, let loose its missiles, and land the kill in as little time as possible, whereas the air superiority fighter wants to deny the enemy any airborne presence and is tasked to kill just about anything in the air that isn't a friendly which puts more value in maneuvering and overall endurance.
Consider the differences between the Mikoyan Foxhound and the Sukhoi Flanker.
>>13954452
>>13954466
>>13954474
Christ I knew they were good but seeing it is completely different. Just one wrong move and both of them go down in flames.
Probably a dumb question, but could procurement of the F-35 be affected by whomever ends up the next President?
Pretty sure Trump has been talking about giving the military what it wants, and not want defense companies want.
>>13955318
>implying Trump isn't feeding the defense industry the same "I'll give you what you want" bullshit he gives everyone
Thanks Trump, you've exposed the political system of the United States for the absolute joke it is.
>>13955318
>but could procurement of the F-35 be affected by whomever ends up the next President?
I doubt it. Candidates will make promises but at the end of the day Congress is in charge of the budget.
