F35 general

DAS, higher internal payload.

comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com

>>32455488
STOVL is only on one variant, the F-35B.

The main advantages of the F-35 over the F-22 are its' sensors and weapons bays, as well as cost, which IS a factor. The main problem with the F-22 bays is that they are too small for munitions bigger than GBU-32.

>>32455488
Additionally, the F-22's maneuverability and speed advantages are mostly irrelevant in a modern BVR engagement.

>>32455573
>Additionally, the F-22's maneuverability and speed advantages are mostly irrelevant in a modern BVR engagement.

Want to take a guess as to why I know you know nothing about BVR beyond wikipedia?

>>32455619
Energy advantage doesn't matter when only 1 side is shooting missiles.

>>32455632
Could it matter if higher cruise speed and altitude combine to extending AMRAAM range, reducing likelihood of detection through increased range from target?

>>32455488
> like the main advantage of the F35 is that it has the vertical landing capability.

Yeah nah. Not even close. The F22 was designed as the peak of the old E-M paradigm. The F35 was designed for the new networked sensors paradigm.

You know the OODA loop? Maneuvering aids the Act phase.

Sensors, stealth, and networking aid the first three parts.

>>32455651
I see.

So basically while the F22 does have better agility, the F35 is so "smart" that it doesn't even matter?

>>32455648
Pretty sure a ground based radar system will still detect from outside of AMRAAM range. The point isn't to evade detection, it's to avoid being locked. The other side can't intercept you.

>>32455488
>from what I can understand it seems like the main advantage of the F35 is that it has the vertical landing capability.

Then you haven't done any research at all.

What a shitty thread.

File: 1482691331008.jpg (168KB, 1180x822px)

168KB, 1180x822px

>>32455573

>Speed and maneuverability don't matter in BVR engagements

>>32455699
With a gen 5 fighter versus a gen 4, you twat. It's implied when where talking exclusively about gen 5 aircraft.

Have there been any attempts to give the F-22 better ground attack capability, like how the F-15 turned into the F-15E or can those internal weapon bays not carry a large payload for anything like COIN, CAS or interdiction?

>>32455672
Yes, it's about hive minds or teamwork.

The F22 was about being the best shooter/sensor from a single position, so it had stealth, and lots of energy to get to that one good position.

Each F35 sees through every other F35, and shoots through every other F35. It shoots from many positions and sees through many eyes. It can target the enemy with an AWACS and shoot them from an Burke.

If you're familiar with Lanchesterian scaling, networked systems rape the shit out of serial teams.

File: FB-22_p0310001.jpg (94KB, 1024x648px)

94KB, 1024x648px

>>32455716
There was talk a couple years back of an FB-22 (and FB-23) before the LRS-B really became a thing.

>>32455488
The F-35 looked very impressive when the first prototypes were being rolled out. They were talking about how the engine put out enough energy to rival a destroyer-sized warship in order to lift it vertically. So everyone was expecting this to be a wonder-plane with that kind of engine power. Well...its not, its a total dud. With the kind of power the F-35 has it should be on a entirely new level, but its just shit. Its happened before, there were jets like the F-111 and F-105 that were expected to entirely redefine the power of jet fighters and both were flops. The F-35 needs to be scrapped, even if LM gave away the F-35 for free (which they should do by now after the money they got) the F-35 is just not worth being used as a frontline fighter.

>>32455573
>Additionally, the F-22's maneuverability and speed advantages are mostly irrelevant in a modern BVR engagement.
with that logic we dont need fighters at all, we should just load missles on a gulfstream jet

>>32455488
F-22 is an air superiority fighter.

F-35 is a multi-role aircraft.

They have completely different roles and requirements, which is why the US bought both.

>>32455741
The F-22 also has insane connectivity with other F-22s. As F-22 pilots have stated, stealth and maneuverability are the least impressive aspects of it. The F-22 is indeed a sensor shooter that works in packs.

>>32455854
Read the fucking thread you retard.

In an engagement between a Gen 5 fighter versus a Gen 4.

>>32455990
>post after post of huurdy duur, dont pay attention to dogfighting, its a BVR fighter
sorry, your shill posts are not even worth commenting on

>>32455632
Its foolish to assume that the F-22's aging RCS reduction technology (or any "stealth" technology) is fool-proof or undetectable.

Proper AWACs support and competitors with VLO airframes will mean that you will eventually be slinging missiles both ways. Its not irrelevant, and I'm tired of kids on here thinking it is.

>>32456018
>competitors with VLO airframes

Who?

File: 1468034436804.png (555KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 800x1200px

>>32455711

>With a gen 5 fighter versus a gen 4, you twat. It's implied when where talking exclusively about gen 5 aircraft

Why would talking exclusively about 5th gen places imply that the only competition is from 4th gen fighters?

>>32456042
Because there is no aircraft that competes with the F-22/F-35. T-50 is dead in the water and J-20 is completely unproven, in addition to having shit engines.

>>32456058

Do you think the F-22 and the F-35 are equivalent planes or something? It's bizarre that you'd take a thread about comparing the F-35 against the F-22 and assume that somehow 4th gens are present when nothing in the text of the OP suggests that is the case.

>>32456183
What is relevant is how they perform versus other aircraft, as these aircraft will never fight each other. Are you mentally retarded?

File: 1482469952247.gif (938KB, 500x281px)

938KB, 500x281px

>>32456190

>Are you mentally retarded?

You certainly appear to be. Did the OP even imply that the two aircraft would be fighting in real life? The F-35 will never fight Rafales, Typhoons, or Gripens either. Are we not allowed to compare them as well?

>>32455488
Not trying to bait, but these are total shit. I work on Eglin AFB and maintenance these pieces of shit and half of them are already starting to have serious problems with the salt in the air down here.... and the navy ordered some up? Good fucking luck. Design wise they are beautiful for ground crews, and I have heard they are decent in the air under conventional standards, but the sensor arrays and communications between aircraft is a work of god. Never flown one though, just do ground work.

Durability is the problem. They fix that and I will be happy.

>>32455488
The F-35's advantages over the F-22 is in its software and sensors, arguably better stealth, A2G payload and most importantly, cost.

>>32455918
Its a swing role not a multi role aircraft. Its weapon bays are too small for it to be multi role.

>>32456784
The fact it always carries AMRAAMs and that the standard loadout is 2x bombs + 2x AMRAAMs proves otherwise.

>>32456828
>+ 2x AMRAAMs proves otherwise
Well WOWEE, a bare-minimum defensive armament, that means it's totally going to be doing counter-air patrol while carrying bombs for a strike mission, right?

No, kid. The other anon was right.

>>32455488
>it seems like the main advantage of the F35 is that it has the vertical landing capability

You've made it clear that you haven't done any where near enough research. Only the F-35B has STVOL capability. Comparing the two aircraft is like trying to compare the F-15 with the F-16. One is an expensive air superiority fighter while the other is a low cost workhorse that can perform a far broader range of tasks. While there are F-15 variants designed for other jobs, they are far fewer in number and are not as cost efficient as the F-16.

You must also realize that the F-22 is used only by the Air force and almost exclusively as an air superiority fighter, its done some work with JDAMs, but it really cannot be employed in that role effectively with consideration to operating costs.

The F-35 is set to be what is more or less the new F-16, one that can be used by the Navy and Air force. I wouldn't try to compare them purely based on their performance because they are made for different jobs.

>>32456932

Why would any fighter ever be carrying bombs for a counter-air mission?

>>32456932
1 missile was enough each of the Hornets that shot down a some MiGs that tried to intercept them while they were on a strike mission.

>>32455488
>So recently I've been doing some research on the F35 and the F22

>it seems like the main advantage of the F35 is that it has the vertical landing capability.

Seems like you have a lot of research left to do.

>>32455573
Speed is life. You use it to get in quickly, faster than the enemy can respond, and to extend the range of your own weapon systems.

An F-22 at Mach 1.5 50,000ft is going to shoot well before an F-35 at Mach 0.8 at 30,000ft.

>>32456018
Precisely this. Stealth is nice and all, but sensors and ECM adapt and overcome. Putting all the eggs in that one stealth basket is a mistake. The F-22 still has super cruise should its stealth be compromised.

Network sensor suites are great and all, but I fail to see why those upgrades could not be retrofitted onto legacy aircraft at a much more affordable price.

>>32456656
I'll give the F-35 credit where its due, its cost finally has dropped down to the affordable level. But still, had F-22 been purchased in its original order numbers, it would be cheaper too.

>>32455741
>It can target the enemy with an AWACS and shoot them from an Burke.
Or from B-1b/B-21s, or F-15Es, or possibly even ground-carried missile trucks as pop-up launch points akin to an AEGIS launch of an SM series.

>>32455842
>Does Mach 1.6 easily
>Does T/W of 1.07 in dogfight config
>Better high-alpha than a Hornet
>Nearly as good a 9G turner as the Viper

I'm sorry, your test results came back, you have Extra Chromosome.

>>32457530
mate the f-22 and f-35 have completely different jobs.

the f-22 is designed to be a fast stealthy interceptor with baller networking features, the f-35 is designed to be a stealthy multirole god-tier-networking-beast.

comparing the f-22 to the f-35 is like comparing the f-15 to the f-16. yeah they're both planes and they can both carry A/A missiles, but that's about the extent of their similarities.

>>32457530
>Speed is life. You use it to get in quickly, faster than the enemy can respond, and to extend the range of your own weapon systems.
And a pilot who has flown Vipers, Hornets, Raptors, and the Lightning II disagrees with you. Information is life, more is better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

>>32457822
>>Does Mach 1.6 easily
am I supposed to be impressed by 1.6 mach?

>>Does T/W of 1.07 in dogfight config
wow, barely over unity, again, am I actually supposed to be impressed??

>>Better high-alpha than a Hornet
which means nothing, any jet can be put into 'high-alpha'

>>Nearly as good a 9G turner as the Viper
the amount of G's a jet pulls means nothing and is arbitrarily set into the control systems to keep a pilot from pulling excess G's

I guess I should expect overall pathetic arguments for such a pathetic fighter

>>32459007
>am I supposed to be impressed by 1.6 mach?
Considering speeds above that are pretty much meaningless for combat, yeah.

>wow, barely over unity, again, am I actually supposed to be impressed??
T/W above 1 tends to be impressive, and that's at 50% fuel.

>which means nothing, any jet can be put into 'high-alpha'
Any jet CAN, but the results of it differ greatly. The F-35 has great performance at high AoA, even better than the Hornet, which is notable for its high AoA performance.

>>32459007
>>32459118 covered it pretty well, but missed a few things:
>which means nothing, any jet can be put into 'high-alpha'
Not any jet; put an F-16 above 30 degrees angle of attack and it crashes. Control at high alpha is also important, the Super Hornet is pretty much the only other jet without TVC that has comparable control at high alpha.

>the amount of G's a jet pulls means nothing and is arbitrarily set into the control systems to keep a pilot from pulling excess G's
Excess Gs set by the strength of the airframe. An F-16 or F-15 with fuel tanks can't pull more than 5.5G, a Hornet / Super Hornet can't pull more than 7.5G clean. The F-35A can do 9G with a full internal payload.

>>32455741
>Each F35 sees through every other F35, and shoots through every other F35. It shoots from many positions and sees through many eyes. It can target the enemy with an AWACS and shoot them from an Burke.

>If you're familiar with Lanchesterian scaling, networked systems rape the shit out of serial teams.

Cool.

>>32459118
>>32459192

its not even fun arguing with LM shills, if you think comparing the F-35 to the F-18 is somehow impressive, fine. The F-18 is a lame fighter. Navy pilots hate it. Its high AoA is a fault in that it stalls out in turns rather than maintain projection of momentum through a turn. Thats all Im going to say, its seriously a waste of my time to deal with people who think the F-18 was a good plane.

>>32459192
>Not any jet; put an F-16 above 30 degrees angle of attack and it crashes
Not quite. You can indeed make the F-16 into a thirty degree angle of attack. It's not going to sustain it for long and likely will lose control. So while it CAN do it, the results are not great.

File: 694940094001_5210179249001_Tucker-Carlson-previews-his-new-prime-time-show-on-Fox-News.jpg (65KB, 1280x720px)

65KB, 1280x720px

>>32459235

>The F-18 is a lame fighter. Navy pilots hate it.

>>32459235
I'm sure if you asked a Hornet pilot who would win in a fight between him and an F-16, he'd say that his is the better plane.

>>32459423
It comes down to who gets a better starting position and can leverage their advantages while minimizing their weaknesses.

>>32459557
Yep. The F-16 would say that his was the better plane too, of course. Fact of the matter is that they're BOTH good planes, and that either one could win.

>>32457530
>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.

Thank you for making an old copypasta relevant again.

>>32457342
In what engagement?

Theres other examples from desert storm of migs evading a dozen missiles and escaping.

Only time bvr has ever worked is against incompetent pilots or obselete aircraft.

>>32461917

The AIM-7M performed fine in 1991 (Wikipedia's numbers suggest a 30/44 or 68.2% hit rate), and its ~50 km maximum range is positively quaint compared to the AIM-120D's >160 km.

The throttleable ducted rocket engines on the newest BVR missiles like the MBDA Meteor will only make them more deadly with superior energy at long range. The proposed UK & Japan advanced Meteor with an AESA seeker shows that BVR missiles are only getting more advanced and deadly.

>>32461917
>During the Gulf War of 1991, the Navy deployed 106 F/A-18A/C Hornets and Marine Corps deployed 84 F/A-18A/C/D Hornets.[29] F/A-18 pilots were credited with two kills during the Gulf War, both MiG-21s.[30] On 17 January, the first day of the war, U.S. Navy pilots Lieutenant Commander Mark I. Fox and his wingman, Lieutenant Nick Mongilio were sent from USS Saratoga in the Red Sea to bomb an airfield in southwestern Iraq. While en route, they were warned by an E-2C of approaching MiG-21 aircraft. The Hornets shot down the two MiGs with AIM-7 and AIM-9 missiles in a brief dogfight. The F/A-18s, each carrying four 2,000 lb (910 kg) bombs, then resumed their bombing run before returning to Saratoga

>>32461987
>Meteor / F-35 combo

muh dick can only get so hard

How does a weapon get so good?

>>32461999
>Engaging in A2A combat while carrying 8000lb of bombs
You've got to be pretty confident in your equipment for that.

>>32461999
Two IRAF MiG-25s fired missiles at a group of F-15Cs escorting a bombing run in Iraq (which were evaded by the F-15s). The F-15Cs gave chase, but were forced to give up when the MiGs outran them. A total of 10 missiles were fired at the MiGs.[2]

>>32462103

OK, so missiles that are barely BVR fired from long range at a retreating Mig-25, one of the fastest interceptors of all time, ran out of energy.

This is relevant to modern BVR missiles how?

>>32461917
>Only time bvr has ever worked is against incompetent pilots or obselete aircraft.
Except for the fact that modern engagements are a majority BVR shoot-down now.

File: radar equation thumb.jpg (210KB, 1280x720px)

210KB, 1280x720px

Bit of a tangent, but new F-35: Busting Myths video - not a proper episode, but just a side-video about the radar range equation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lWO_JDsjA

File: 1469101442921.jpg (5KB, 189x155px)

5KB, 189x155px

>>32455488
F35 has a higher amount of cash being paid off to lobbyist and jewish interests

File: f35.jpg (47KB, 256x201px)

47KB, 256x201px

You fuckers need to watch this video right now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

>>32462419
is this true, is the F16 better than the F15?

>>32455488
F-22 has better speed and maneuverability. But that's about it.

F-35 is half the cost, more reliable because single engine vs double, has longer range, better payload and multirole capability, better stealth and ECM/EWAR, better radar, sensors, avionics, etc. Better data linking and sensor fusion.

I'm sure there's more but that's the big stuff off the top of my head.

File: 55244798.jpg (89KB, 500x281px)

89KB, 500x281px

>>32462419
>>32462428

>still spreyposting even though its almost 2017

File: trump_jsf.png (39KB, 500x201px)

39KB, 500x201px

FUCK YES can't wait for donnie to get sworn in

>>32455716
I think there was, but it would be too expensive. Not worth it. F-35 does the job better than a shoehorned f-22 will.

File: c62.jpg (136KB, 546x700px)

136KB, 546x700px

>>32462409

>F35 has a higher amount of cash being paid off to lobbyist and jewish interests

>>32462388

WOP WOP

You've stepped up your game in production quality.

>>32462210
Tactically it might be better to keep slinging missles at them to keep them running instead of turning.

What's more, the fact the f-15s stayed on the 25s tail long enough to fire 10 missles is pretty impressive.

File: 1470181304642.jpg (44KB, 309x307px)

44KB, 309x307px

>>32462454
> OY VEY! Post all the memes! The goy found out, down them down now!

>>32462456
I've been wanting to do an example demonstration (with graphics of jets moving around the screen, fading in and out as they're detected or not, etc), but I have no flash experience and Powerpoint is a pain in the ass. I considered using CMANO as well, but I can't edit database info (to make it more realistic) without the game rejecting those databases. Maybe I could do a stop-motion whiteboard thing.

>>32462448
>LM already responded with "yeah, sure buddy." Then make a wanking motion and continued with current cost reduction program

>>32462479
Go home >>>/pol/

>>32462491
Shiiieeeet. Maybe somebody here could help you.

>>32462491

You can do motion graphics inside most video editors, just a little bit of a bitch to do.

You could also ask Binkov what he does. He's posted here before and given your relative fame among online military austists, he might be fairly receptive to a joint video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcwDfaY4OW4

>>32462448

>A comparable F-18 Super Hornet

So how will a super hornet be made comparable with the F-35B?

He just wants to take credit for future cost reductions by saying it was his pressure that forced LM to cut costs.

Of course he's ignoring the fact that costs were already decreasing for years before he became president.

Its a smart move though.
Americans are uninformed as fuck and will swallow it 100%.

>>32456018
>Implying that because in 40 years someone might have a competitive air force with stealthy fighters the US shouldn't bother with improving and just use shitty old super hornets for the next 40 years

>>32462545
Boeing can't make a comperable Hornet, but that wouldn't stop them from lobbying as hard as they can during the meeting about AirForceOne costs.

>>32456784
Is an F-16 considered multirole? Because the F-35 can carry the same or more payload than the F-16 and with greater operational range.

>>32457342
>Holding the F-35 to way higher standards than the other fighters that they have no problems with.
>Omg F-35 with two large bombs can only carry two amraams and has longer range, omg it's not a multirole but the hornet and f-16 totally are multirole

>>32463348
The F-16 has been a multi-role Fighter-bomber from day one. In fact, the F-16A was the most accurate with unguided bombs at the time because of its radar-guidance reticule.

And the F-35 can carry as much as an F-16 in pure internal configuration. And more than an A-10 in external.

>>32457530
Retrofitting shit like that on old fighters is not cheap.

And "speed is life" is old. The 21st century is all about "information is life"

The fact that the F-22 can outperform it in terms of pure air maneuvering capability is irrelevant.

>>32459235
Enlighten us then, what do you consider good plane? Give us your context here, instead of just shitting on everyone elae

>>32463336
Thats not what was implied in any way.

>>32462526
Binkov is most likely doing flash; also, see HistoryAnimated's old "videos".

File: j20-759.jpg (16KB, 759x422px)

16KB, 759x422px

>>32462337

>Except for the fact that modern engagements are a majority BVR shoot-down now.

The majority of modern engagements have involved F-15's shooting off BVR missiles at obsolete MiG-21's that had no way to anticipate incoming missiles or deploy counter-measures. What happens if you have to go up against a modern Russian or Chinese aircraft that has sensors to detect incoming missiles and numerous electronic systems that will confuse the missile guidance? And because the pilot will know that there is an incoming missile, they will be able to take evasive action as well. Stealth will still give the F-35 a big advantage, but it won't be as easy as firing off a few missiles and waiting for them to hit an unaware target that has no way to defend itself.

>>32463822
Actually, 80% of modern shoot-downs were fired from BVR with the target being completely unaware until the missile had them dead to rights.

>>32463822
And the AIM-120D can be launched in pure two-way link guidance mode until it has the target in NEZ, so an F-35 can fire one with only the LPI data link transmitting.

>>32463834

Did you just not read the entire post or something? Do you really think the kinds of fighter jets that China or Russia would be using a theoretical future engagement would be unable to detect incoming missiles?

>>32463863
Pretty much yes. The F-22 and F-35 still have both technical and training advantages over the Russian and Chinese 4.5 Gens that they're building.

>>32463883

I never said that they were better than the F-35 or F-22. Simply that they would be able to detect incoming missiles. The idea that you're going to score kills against a completely unaware target is laughable.

>>32463894
The T-50 doesn't even have a 360 IRST array, and again, the AIM-120D from an F-35 requires zero active radar until the missile has the target plane inside its NEZ.

File: swastikaflaghitler.jpg (24KB, 250x234px)

24KB, 250x234px

>>32456784
You could have just googled man, why do you niggers choose to make shit up on the fly?

>>32456533
Hello gulfbro! Tell them pilots to fly near Pensacola more often, I haven't seen one in months.

>>32459192
Please shut the fuck up. You know nothing about g limits or AoA. It hurts to read such nonsense.

>>32463822
>that has sensors to detect incoming missiles

Yeah?

What sensors would these be, anon?

>>32462419
>muh f35 can't do 100ft diameter turns 5 ft off the ground so it's bad.
This guys is a fucking moron.

>>32463372
Lol nooooo. The original design was intended to be a close range dogfighter with IR missiles. The multirole abilities were shoehorned in later to much opposition from the likes of Sprey and other idiots like him that didn't even want it to have a radar.

>>32463894
Lol you think having an RWR somehow makes BVR not important?

>>32464574
Does Sprey just hate all things modern? Like he seems to always favor a simple, cheap, quantity approach for everything from planes to tanks.

>>32464574
>The original design was intended to be a close range dogfighter with IR missiles.
That was the YF-16. The F-16 is bigger in every direction and forsakes everything Sprey wanted to be an all-weather multi-role.

>>32464659
He's just a blowhard luddite. He has grand opinions and visions of how he thinks warfare works, despite having minimal qualifications. He's a self-appointed expert and there's probably people here on /k/ with better qualifications to talk about things like this. His ideas have been disproven decades ago but he just recycles them. The same shit he says about the F-35 he said about the F-15 and the addition of radar and BVR missiles and ground attack to the F-16 and the M1 Abrams. And then when the platform becomes successful he takes credit for influencing the design, despite having nothing to do with it. He also spews his crap to the media who are eager to gobble up the "muh maverick outsider expert military industrial complex corruption and inefficiency" crap.

>>32464800
.....exactly. the other anon claimed it was designed to be a multirole from the ground up.thats objectively false.

>>32464880
PS same with the A-10. He strongly opposed adding the maverick missile and other such capabilities to the A-10 because he was obsessed with it being a gun platform. Then when the A-10 sees success with the very features he opposed, he still goes around lauding himself as "involved in designing the A-10"

>>32464659

If you want to see how much of a shittalker Sprey is, read The Revolt of the Majors. He gets utterly btfo'd.

>>32464891
That was me, and the F-16A was. There isn't much left of the YF-16's design philosophy in the actual production Viper except things they couldn't fix, like the tiny fuel fraction. It's pretty much completely the YF-16's conceptual antithesis.

It's bigger. It has more payload points and total payload capacity. It had advanced avionics and sensors for the time. It had a near-experimental Fly By Wire system.

>>32455716
There was some talk, but it would require major revisions due to how shallow the F-22s internal bay is.

File: BG-F35A-overview-chart-2.gif (61KB, 400x1020px)

61KB, 400x1020px

Daily reminder

>>32463954
NAS Pensacola hates having to deal with them. Something to do with "Immature AF pilots" trying to have a pissing contest with their Immature Navy pilots. NAS is supposed to get a few touch and go's of the C's in the next few months. That being said, the C runs hotter for some reason than the A. That and as of the past few weeks, the L-ion batteries on board have been acting up. I think they are running to hot... but thats just my opinion. Beginning of the year we will get the new thermal management system for those though, and if all goes as planned, you will be seeing some birds in Pcola soon. Oh, and if you are near niceville around the base, you will be getting a good surprise if you watch tomorrow night.

>>32464969
>>32464880
I'm pretty sure there's a polaroid photo of him with "Do the opposite of what he says" wrote on the back

>>32464982
Would we have been better off just buying more F-15C/E?

>>32465302
No. Secondary squadrons and Air National Guard would've probably still been stuck with F-4s until now. The F-16 was still so much cheaper than the F-15 that they could properly modernize the entire fighter force. And with the F-15Cs we still had more air superiority planes than anyone else.

>>32464614
>>32463894

>Lol you think having an RWR somehow makes BVR not important?

I never said that or even implied it.

>>32465378

>Implying the F-4 doesn't shit all over the F-16

Anybody who's played DCS knows that WVR is where 90% of the fights go down. Having the ability to launch BVR before an enemy is a huge advantage... but it won't kill the enemy, it will just force him defensive. By the time you're in position to put him down you're well within visual range. Not even mentioning mountainous terrain or inclement weather.

>>32467067
>Implying it ever did

>>32467067
>F-4 flying bus shitting on anything 4th gen
you havin a giggl

>>32465378
Not to mention allies who could not afford F-15 needed a new plane, F-16 was great as an international program.

>>32467096
kill yourself for even mentioning DCS, especially missile mechanics.

>>32467161
>Denying that a BVR engagement won't result in any casualties unless one of the pilots thinks his RWR warnings means the laundry is done.

>>32467194
Thats exactly what I'm denying.

Hurry on back to your "sim" that even the creators admit is extremely loosely based on real life, and decades ago at that

>>32467218
Any warning past 20km that you're locked gives you plenty of time to climb away or dive to ground level. DCS has nothing to do with it.

>>32467240
Considering thats smaller than the supposed NEZ of C-7 AIM-120s, seems like a dubious claim, sim-fag!

>>32467096
>basing conclusion off of a flight simulator and deliberately ignoring the past 50 years of fighter combat.

>>32464982
And if Sprey had his way, it would have stayed like the YF-16

>>32466941
>Mention facts
>Someone asks if you are implying the most direct conclusion from that implication
>Act all aloof and offended and indignant that someone would dare to think you were implying something.

Get over yourself anon. If you weren't implying that, then what the fuck was the point of mentioning that yes, fighters have devices that can detect incoming missile launches, and that yes, it's rare that the target will be totally unaware of a missile incoming? What was your point?

Fucking anons and their vague posting, and acting all smug when someone asks if they are implying something. Fuck.

>>32467153
This is big. You had pretty much all of NATO and other European countries, not to mention middle Eastern allies too, all being able to afford modern multirole fighters to replace the old shitboxes they had been stuck with.

The F-35 will do the same thing. Suddenly, all of NATO and other US allies will have VLO modern 5th gen fighters.

>>32467096
DCS can teach a lot, but missile dynamics is one thing it doesnt do well. Missiles have shit aerodynamics compared to real life and suffer from much reduced range in-game.

And you just admitted how even in a game where BVR missiles are shit compared to real life, the BVR aspect is still crucial to winning the fight, even if it goes to WVR

>>32455488

The F-35 can go slower. Much slower. Slow enough to loiter like a helicopter if required, and it carries a larger capacity of weapons for longer engagement time with sensors specifically built for that role. This allows it to perform maneuvers that could otherwise only be conducted by a helicopter.

File: 1456725117861.webm (2MB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 853x480px

>>32467425
muh sims

>>32467456
Yeah......the R-27 missiles in DCS are absolute dogshit. So useless.

>>32467471
Also
>AIM-120B
>B

File: beemovie[1].jpg (139KB, 1280x775px)

139KB, 1280x775px

>>32468610