|
awesome-express posted:BF3/4? The F35 was also in Battlefield 2 back in 2005.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
VodeAndreas posted:The F35 was also in Battlefield 2 back in 2005. If I remember correctly, it got comically spanked by the other jets too. Of course, skygods were completely untouchable by the players on the ground so the jerks in planes would just spend the round bombing people into oblivion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:If I remember correctly, it got comically spanked by the other jets too. Of course, skygods were completely untouchable by the players on the ground so the jerks in planes would just spend the round bombing people into oblivion. The reason why it got screwed in BF3 is the game control system interpreted you using braking as you wanting to switch to hover mode. Once you disabled that functionality it became on par with the other plane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
etalian posted:How will the F-35 be good at any role when the airframe is fundamentally flawed, plus having limited range and max payload. If your source is Winslow Wheeler or Pierre Sprey for the "fundamentally flawed" bit, sorry, try again. Those are some smart guys at certain things and have done some good work but they've lost their goddamned minds regarding the F-35. As for the limited range and max payload, I agree, but as has been pointed out that's true of a lot of other fighters. I wasn't saying it was going to be the most bestest awesomest aircraft at everything (in fact my point was that there were some mission sets it's now tasked with that it won't be much good at), I just said it would be a pretty good strike fighter. Interestingly enough, the current gold standard for US strike fighters (the Viper, and even the Super Hornet maybe) are both limited range and max payload in a lot of mission sets. So that criticism is less F-35 specific and more directed at the general idea of a strike fighter. Dead Reckoning posted:it's not like it's an early Vought jet or something,) I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated this. "Not powered by a Westinghouse motor" would've also been an acceptable response. gradenko_2000 posted:For that matter, are there any recent attempts at simming the F-35? Lockheed's M&S efforts to justify concurrency. Wait, poo poo. Dead Reckoning posted:Since gun integration isn't until 2016, I'm gonna go with "no." In the broader category of "expending munitions" though, yes. Live (explosive) munitions, even!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Sorry to necro this thread, but does anyone have the chart that shows the requirements of  "fifth-generation" fighter aircraft; listing most of the modern planes discussed in this thread, and the stunning lack of checkboxes for the F35?Namely, stealth, supercruise, radar capability, vector thrust, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
it's ok, lockmart redefined the requirements for next generation aircraft from "f22" to "f35"
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 08:23
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Mister Macys posted:Sorry to necro this thread, but does anyone have the chart that shows the requirements of Last I heard they put the emphasis on "sensor data fusion" and "networked combat information bubble".
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Last I heard they put the emphasis on "sensor data fusion" and "networked combat information bubble". So a monkey model export MiG with sensor and network pods bolted on is a 5th gen fighter in the same way as the f35, sounds about right.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
blowfish posted:So a monkey model export MiG with sensor and network pods bolted on is a 5th gen fighter in the same way as the f35, sounds about right. Indeed, glorious Russian/Soviet engineering is victorious once again! Russian pov is that the "next gen" airplane is whatever airplane has a clear and decisive tactical and strategic advantadge over existing airplanes or over ground/sea based air defence in combat conditions, and that these advantadges are such that a new generation of antagonists or overwhelming quantity of existing antagonists have to be employed to defeat it. Russia does tout PAK-FA as being such a plane (they are slowly learning advertizing from the Americans), but Russian brass sees it as a major improvement, not neccesarily a new generation. They are also watching the F35 like people elsewhere watch an ongoing trainwreck.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Indeed, glorious Russian/Soviet engineering is victorious once again! The PAK-FA is about the only acquisition program on the planet that the F-35 compares favorably to.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The PAK-FA is about the only acquisition program on the planet that the F-35 compares favorably to. Nah, the PAK-FA is a less expensive failure.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Nah, the PAK-FA is a less expensive failure. PAK-FA also isn't a real jet yet beyond prototype while at the very least the F35 is an actual produced jet that flys and drops bombs or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:at the very least the F35 is an actual produced jet that flys and drops bombs or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Uhhhh excuse me??? Hard to tell who is joking ITT.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
I wasn't.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Reddit gold-winner, and supposed Air Force colonel informed me that there have been zero issues with the F 35, and that the Osprey never had issues at all. I now believe him to be full of poo poo in all matters of life.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:PAK-FA also isn't a real jet yet beyond prototype while at the very least the F35 is an actual produced jet that flys and drops bombs or whatever. The F-35 is still at the prototype stage, it's just they're building a lot of prototypes. You get stuff like this:  "the weapon bay on the F-35B is too small to accommodate for SDB2, will need to be redesigned." "writing the software for using SDB2 isn't planned before Block 420, just build hundreds of F-35B with the current small bay design, we'll redesign and retrofit them later." "shouldn't we, you know, measure twice, cut once? it's gonna be super-expensive to retrofit the weapon bay on hundreds of planes!" "that's the point!"
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The F-35 is still at the prototype stage, it's just they're building a lot of prototypes. Yeah, the F-35 not going through the Prototype->Assembly Line->Upgrade life cycle like every other military program ever but instead going Assembly Line->Fix->Upgrade is easily the worst part of the program and also where most of the vast sums of money is being pissed down the drain. After that I would say that trying to cram 3 different aircraft into 1 air frame is the second biggest issue where having 3 different air frames trying to use as many of the same components as possible would be much better and would actually save a ton of money.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Best part of all is that all the countries that will get these F-35's will probably have to buy upgrade packs to get a functioning plane, just so they keep getting money for poo poo they should have fixed before they sold the things. Isn't that really the only way they can really gain back any of the cash that was pissed away by all the awful and extremely dumb planning?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The F-35 is still at the prototype stage, it's just they're building a lot of prototypes. Well if they don't have bombs at least they have guns! Oh.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Koorisch posted:Best part of all is that all the countries that will get these F-35's will probably have to buy upgrade packs to get a functioning plane, just so they keep getting money for poo poo they should have fixed before they sold the things. You know your military-industrial complex is completely out of control when it copies Electronic Arts' business model with day 1 plane patches and DLC.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:PAK-FA also isn't a real jet yet beyond prototype while at the very least the F35 is an actual produced jet that flys and drops bombs or whatever. The PAK-FA will never be a real jet when India pulls out of that poo poo program this year or next. Because Russia sure as poo poo isn't going to be able to afford the development costs let alone build them in any quantity that matters
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Reddit gold-winner, and supposed Air Force colonel informed me that there have been zero issues with the F 35, and that the Osprey never had issues at all. I now believe him to be full of poo poo in all matters of life. The Osprey honestly hasn't had any out of the ordinary issues while it's been in service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the reported problems are basically related to crew experience with new aircraft and people doing dumb poo poo like trying to land in a gully, at night, during a dust storm.  All in all it's been a really good and useful aircraft and I expect to see it replace most land transport choppers in the next decade or so. ugh its Troika fucked around with this message at 06:02 on May 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Bolow posted:The PAK-FA will never be a real jet when India pulls out of that poo poo program this year or next. Because Russia sure as poo poo isn't going to be able to afford the development costs let alone build them in any quantity that matters That's why it's a less expensive failure: Russia can't afford to buy a fleet of DOA $
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:The Osprey honestly hasn't had any out of the ordinary issues while it's been in service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the reported problems are basically related to crew experience with new aircraft and people doing dumb poo poo like trying to land in a gully, at night, during a dust storm. I wonder how many of them will be shot down after they put those missile systems on them.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 11:02
|
|
|
Bolow posted:The PAK-FA will never be a real jet when India pulls out of that poo poo program this year or next. Because Russia sure as poo poo isn't going to be able to afford the development costs let alone build them in any quantity that matters I wonder if China will agree to fund the PAK if thw Russies buy some warships from China?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I wonder if China will agree to fund the PAK if thw Russies buy some warships from China?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Presumably to get a piece of that PAK themselves. Or perhaps more relevant, whatever new engines they cook up.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Presumably to get a piece of that PAK themselves. Again, why would the Chinese want a part of that project? They have two of their own "fifth-gen" fighters under development. Whether or not the J-20 and J-31 turn out to be effective aircraft remains to be seen (and likely won't ever be seen), but going in with the Russians on the PAK-FA just doesn't make sense from their perspective. Chinese engines are basically on par with Russian offerings these days anyway, which isn't saying much; Russian engines are two or three generations behind Western engines as it is. The AL-31, Russia's best fighter engine, is roughly analogue to a midlife Pratt F100 or GE F110 in terms of technology...engines that were fielded in the late 1980s and early 1990s. MrChips fucked around with this message at 20:40 on May 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Speculation about the PAK-FA is silly anyway, the Russians are much more secretive about this kind of thing than the West. It would be hilarious if India switched to the Rafale, though
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
The Chinese are just going to buy an engine from the Israelis once we gift them an F35. Edit: Do the Russians grow monocrystaline superalloy turbine blades?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I doubt it. Why would China want to buy an increasingly hostile and expansionist neighbor a new fighter better than anything the PLAAF can field? You should really watch the Chinese coverage of the Ukrainian crisis. Fawning:"Wow, Putin/Russia actually stands up to the west! Why doesnt our goverment does that?" Or realist:"Yay, Russia is actually fighting the west and we didnt even have to bribe them to do that! This gives us at least an extra decade to build up before the US containment of us gets anywhere." Or Business:"Yay, Russia is fighting the west. Means that they can do not much while we happily expand into their turf in Central Asia! Compared to the stupid westerners we wont snub them in order to feel good or whatever though." Or strategic:"OK reunification ministery I hope you took extensive notes of the Crimean operation!" Or cautious:"Well, we dont like color revolutions, and we dont like support for seperatists, and the Russians could, in theory, support seperatists in Xinjiang, if backed up by Indian support for seperatist in Tibet it could get mildly nasty. The odds of these events are so remote that it is perhaps something that could happen if the USA somehow manages to regime change us. Meanwhile estblishing a precedent that recently regime changed minor nations are fair game is something we can totally get behind." As for expansionist Russia, Status Quo Ante Bellum in Ukraine was Ukraine being basically neutral. This status got changed, and not by Russia.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:As for expansionist Russia, Status Quo Ante Bellum in Ukraine was Ukraine being basically neutral. This status got changed, and not by Russia.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:As for expansionist Russia, Status Quo Ante Bellum in Ukraine was Ukraine being basically neutral. This status got changed, and not by Russia. If "neutral" means "Russian-aligned, controlled by Russian interests, and focused on serving Russian purposes" then yes Ukraine was neutral.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:If "neutral" means "Russian-aligned, controlled by Russian interests, and focused on serving Russian purposes" then yes Ukraine was neutral. Nah, Yanuk was very much into "multi vectoring" .The guy spent considerable time in 2013 in China, made some pretty nice deals, including armaments, and that those deals arent very possible under Nato/Eu rule is yet another reason why China backs Russi., In addition, Yanuk aligned Oligarchs actually did corporate raiding on Russian and Russian aligned industrial interests in the South East. Painting him as some docile vasall of Putin is complete Bullshit. Yanuks goal was to maneuver Ukraine into a position were Russia was paying them handsomely for not doing something (like joining the EU etc.) and he achieved this. He also, repeatedly, made clear that he is not closing the door to the EU, but that he is not willing to sign the association treaty at this time simply because it is a pretty bad offer. Ukraine wont get to join the EU if they give the EU comission everything it wants, without insisting on a clear joining pathway in return. The EEU with an Ukrainian joining would have basically been a joint Kazak/Ukraine/Belarus competition to scam Russia/Putin out of money.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Edit: Do the Russians grow monocrystaline superalloy turbine blades? Yes, although they struggled mightily for a long time to get it right. The NK-86A (an improved version of the engine that powered the Ilyushin IL-86 airliner) of the late 1980s was the first Soviet/Russian engine to use monocrystalline turbine blades. The AL-31 was designed to use them, but early versions were built with directionally-solidifed blades instead, and it wasn't until the AL-31FP version much later on (late 90s/early 2000s) that monocrystalline blades were used. Incidentally, the Chinese WS-10A, a similar engine to the AL-31, used monocrystalline blades from the get-go.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
I understand China's engine technology is still slightly behind Russia. As for the plane designs China can hack from US contractors themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I understand China's engine technology is still slightly behind Russia. As for the plane designs China can hack from US contractors themselves. problem: the US planes are poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:problem: the US planes are poo poo Much like your posting.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 22:42
|
|