[QUOTE=Apache249;38472128]An F22 does not cost 735 million dollars... Closer to 150 million.[/QUOTE]
could balance a few cities education budgets with that explosion :v:
One of my friends is a crew chief for F-22's, and the oxygen thing is definitely 100% pilot error as Gunfox has said. Pilots have a tendency to take shortcuts, and it is usually up to the crew chiefs to clean up the mess that improper procedure leaves behind.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M[/media]
F-22 is useless an expensive.
[QUOTE=Aide;38472628][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M[/media]
F-22 is useless an expensive.[/QUOTE]
From what I understand, the F-35 wasn't really designed for close range combat. It just fires its missiles from farther away than all the other jets and then gets the hell out.
[editline]16th November 2012[/editline]
Still needlessly expensive shit though. The Dutch government keeps debating about the JSF project costs on a regular basis.
[QUOTE=Aide;38472628][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M[/media]
F-22 is useless an expensive.[/QUOTE]
We can't keep flying F-16's and F-15's that are over 30 years old. There's friggin' Facepunch members with parents that are younger than a lot of our aircraft. They HAVE to be replaced. We can build new ones, and upgrade avionics, OR, we can build something that has the capability of any aircraft we fly, and then some, which will shrink our fleet and maintenance costs, while still expanding on our capability. The F-22 and F-35 are smart, if initially expensive, with each one built they get cheaper. They initially cost about $240Mil each, and now cost as little as $130Mil
And if you look at how it performed in combat simulations against other pilots (In Red Flag, for instance) It accounted for a colossal amount of kills against our latest hardware, aside from the F-22 itself, while only losing one. And that one was shot down because a previously shot down enemy re-entered the fight without them realizing he was back in the fight. We're talking 144 kills by the F-22's alone, taking down Mig-35's, F15's, F16's and Eurofighters... I'll take a squadron of F-22's over 3 squadrons of anything out there hands down. And just wait until we start putting AIM-120D's onto our aircraft. We'll effectively be two generations ahead of anything else
[QUOTE=TheTalon;38472770]We can't keep flying F-16's and F-15's that are over 30 years old. There's friggin' Facepunch members with parents that are younger than a lot of our aircraft. They HAVE to be replaced.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe the F-15's should be replaced. The dual-role aircraft has more carriage options that the F-16/22/35 lacks. They're more capable of engaging ground targets yes, however once the load is dropped then they're able to swing their asses around and engage airborne targets.
If a conflict arises with a country with somewhat of airborne threat, then the F-22's and F-35's would be a great asset. Unless they decide the upgrade one of those aircraft to support more PGM options than the F-15, then I'm all for it.
[QUOTE=l33tkill;38472894]I don't believe the F-15's should be replaced. The dual-role aircraft has more carriage options that the F-16/22/35 lacks. They're more capable of engaging ground targets yes, however once the load is dropped then they're able to swing their asses around and engage airborne targets.
If a conflict arises with a country with somewhat of airborne threat, then the F-22's and F-35's would be a great asset. Unless they decide the upgrade one of those aircraft to support more PGM options than the F-15, then I'm all for it.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget the F-22 can carry munitions in its internal bays and on pylons on the wings which can be jettisoned at any time for instant stealth. 6 AIM-120's in the center bays and two more AIM9's in the side bays + Anything on exterior pylons. It can even carry 4 fuel tanks AND 8 Missiles. And the F-22 can lead a B-1 Lancer by 20 miles loaded full of AIM120's and send targets from their radar, to the B-1 and have the B-1 fire everything, while being well out of range of enemy aircraft, and the F-22's remain undetected. The F-15's great, but the F-22 is better. I definitely think we should keep building F-15's until they're just inferior to everything, though, but we could use with retiring some of them at this point
[QUOTE=TheTalon;38472919]Don't forget the F-22 can carry munitions in its internal bays and on pylons on the wings which can be jettisoned at any time for instant stealth. 6 AIM-120's in the center bays and two more AIM9's in the side bays + Anything on exterior pylons. It can even carry 4 fuel tanks AND 8 Missiles. And the F-22 can lead a B-1 Lancer by 20 miles loaded full of AIM120's and send targets from their radar, to the B-1 and have the B-1 fire everything, while being well out of range of enemy aircraft, and the F-22's remain undetected. The F-15's great, but the F-22 is better. I definitely thing we should keep building F-15's until they're just inferior to everything, though, but we could use with retiring some of them at this point[/QUOTE]
I agree to an extent. I'm just referring to larger munitions that the newer aircraft can't carry. For example the BLU-113, and the amount of MK-84's/BLU-109's that it's able to hold, while still maintaining the status of dual role.
conspiracy
Psht, I'm still rocking my favorite: The F-4.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/0GAPW.jpg[/IMG]
I actually have 2 small, thumb-sized air filters from these beauties.
f4s are still unbelievably cool
This thread needs more bare metal!
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/6DOq3.jpg[/IMG]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.jpg/300px-Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.jpg[/img]
Let's just bring these back. Who cares if we can just use satellites now.... and the fact that it loses half it's fuel on the runway by leaking because when it goes so fast the fuel tanks expand.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;38472770]We can't keep flying F-16's and F-15's that are over 30 years old. There's friggin' Facepunch members with parents that are younger than a lot of our aircraft. They HAVE to be replaced. We can build new ones, and upgrade avionics, OR, we can build something that has the capability of any aircraft we fly, and then some, which will shrink our fleet and maintenance costs, while still expanding on our capability. The F-22 and F-35 are smart, if initially expensive, with each one built they get cheaper. They initially cost about $240Mil each, and now cost as little as $130Mil
And if you look at how it performed in combat simulations against other pilots (In Red Flag, for instance) It accounted for a colossal amount of kills against our latest hardware, aside from the F-22 itself, while only losing one. And that one was shot down because a previously shot down enemy re-entered the fight without them realizing he was back in the fight. We're talking 144 kills by the F-22's alone, taking down Mig-35's, F15's, F16's and Eurofighters... I'll take a squadron of F-22's over 3 squadrons of anything out there hands down. And just wait until we start putting AIM-120D's onto our aircraft. We'll effectively be two generations ahead of anything else[/QUOTE]
Mig-35's aren't in service in any country. Plus anti-stealth and defensive tactics will probably win at the end of the day anyways. F-35's are not that stealthy in comparison, they have a massive and I mean fucking massive single engine which will flare up on IR. They aren't maneuverable either. What is it going to do when it comes up against other stealth aircraft? Its going to fall out of the sky because it can't move and has a smaller radar.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38474064]Mig-35's aren't in service in any country. Plus anti-stealth and defensive tactics will probably win at the end of the day anyways. F-35's are not that stealthy in comparison, they have a massive and I mean fucking massive single engine which will flare up on IR. They aren't maneuverable either. What is it going to do when it comes up against other stealth aircraft? Its going to fall out of the sky because it can't move and has a smaller radar.[/QUOTE]
India fielded Mig 35's I believe. Weird, right?
[QUOTE=TheTalon;38474082]India fielded Mig 35's I believe. Weird, right?[/QUOTE]
They don't. They have Su-30MKI's and Mig-29's.
[editline]16th November 2012[/editline]
Plus in any exercise they have to turn off their powerful radars because of instruction from Moscow.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;38472919]Don't forget the F-22 can carry munitions in its internal bays and on pylons on the wings which can be jettisoned at any time for instant stealth. 6 AIM-120's in the center bays and two more AIM9's in the side bays + Anything on exterior pylons. It can even carry 4 fuel tanks AND 8 Missiles. And the F-22 can lead a B-1 Lancer by 20 miles loaded full of AIM120's and send targets from their radar, to the B-1 and have the B-1 fire everything, while being well out of range of enemy aircraft, and the F-22's remain undetected. The F-15's great, but the F-22 is better. I definitely think we should keep building F-15's until they're just inferior to everything, though, but we could use with retiring some of them at this point[/QUOTE]
You watched Future Dogfights didn't you? Well, the B1R isn't in service yet. That's the one with air/air capability and F-119-PW-100s.
AIM-120's are not hard to evade, pilots can simply break direction and avoid it completely, plus modern ECM.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38474405]AIM-120's are not hard to evade, pilots can simply break direction and avoid it completely, plus modern ECM.[/QUOTE]
and you know this how?
you make it sound like they're an unguided rocket.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38475491]and you know this how?
you make it sound like they're an unguided rocket.[/QUOTE]
They're guided but a flanker could easily out out maneuver it. That is the benefit of having a super maneuverable fighter. Flankers OLS-27/35 could detect the incoming missile, warning the pilot and giving him time to perform evasive maneuvers. At almost any engagement range the Su-35 will be able to out-turn a AIM-120, thus kill probability is likely to be low.
[QUOTE=BandClassHAH;38473135]Psht, I'm still rocking my favorite: The F-4.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/0GAPW.jpg[/IMG]
I actually have 2 small, thumb-sized air filters from these beauties.[/QUOTE]
I like the Phantom but the Raptor looks so much sexier IMO.
Which is why the story of one dying saddened me. We need to maintain the sexy aircraft!
[QUOTE=laserguided;38475536]They're guided but a flanker could easily out out maneuver it. That is the benefit of having a super maneuverable fighter. Flankers OLS-27/35 could detect the incoming missile, warning the pilot and giving him time to perform evasive maneuvers. At almost any engagement range the Su-35 will be able to out-turn a AIM-120, thus kill probability is likely to be low.[/QUOTE]
It depends. AIM120C's have longer range than the Bravos, but the Bravos are more maneuverable. It's not so simple to avoid any of them, and it doesn't matter because once they realize one's been fired they're no longer pointing their nose at you, they're bleeding off speed and worrying about the missile. And it doesn't matter how maneuverable your plane is, the AIM 9X pretty much can't be out maneuvered once you're close enough to fire it. Hope you have flares and I hope your ass is towards whoever's firing it, otherwise game over. AIM-9X can pick up the entire plane's heat signature, rather than just the exhaust, really well
[QUOTE=TheTalon;38476062]It depends. AIM120C's have longer range than the Bravos, but the Bravos are more maneuverable. It's not so simple to avoid any of them, and it doesn't matter because once they realize one's been fired they're no longer pointing their nose at you, they're bleeding off speed and worrying about the missile. And it doesn't matter how maneuverable your plane is, the AIM 9X pretty much can't be out maneuvered once you're close enough to fire it. Hope you have flares and I hope your ass is towards whoever's firing it, otherwise game over[/QUOTE]
Once they're in AIM-9 range, I'm betting on the Flanker outdoing the F-35. Because at that range they can both see eachother clearly. Once the F-35 is out of missiles, its screwed unless they outnumber the enemy because of better performance capabilities of the opposing jets. Also, I think you got Brahmos mixed up with RVV-AE(AMRAAMSKI), Brahmos is a anti-ship/cruise missile and the RVV-AE is the equivilant of a AIM-120D. They're both solid jets, every offense has a just as good defense when it comes to the Su-35, or so it seems.
Once T-50 are put into serial production in about 2 years time, America will loose its stealth advantage if all goes as planned. Then a long time after that China will roll out its el cheapo stealth fighters.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38476165]Once they're in AIM-9 range, I'm betting on the Flanker outdoing the F-35. Because at that range they can both see eachother clearly. Once the F-35 is out of missiles, its screwed unless they outnumber the enemy because of better performance capabilities of the opposing jets. Also, I think you got Brahmos mixed up with RVV-AE(AMRAAMSKI), Brahmos is a anti-ship/cruise missile and the RVV-AE is the equivilant of a AIM-120D. They're both solid jets, every offense has a just as good defense when it comes to the Su-35, or so it seems.[/QUOTE]
No I was referring to AIM-120B's to C's. They're both nice, but the B's have a bit shorter range, and a bit more maneuverability than the C's and are thus harder to avoid, or maybe I got that reversed. I don't know I'm tired
[QUOTE=TheTalon;38476597]No I was referring to AIM-120B's to C's. They're both nice, but the B's have a bit shorter range, and a bit more maneuverability than the C's and are thus harder to avoid, or maybe I got that reversed. I don't know I'm tired[/QUOTE]
F-35 can only carry C or D because of internal bays. F-35 has the ability to use external pylons but that is counter productive since its supposed to be a stealth jet.
seriously how many of these things do we just kinda wreck whilst taking them for a spin?
to the side conversation, I was always a fan of the phantom. My grandpa on my mom's side was a pilot during Vietnam
also can someone identify this thing? it's been parked out in front of a random bar down the road from me (in the ass-end mini-strip of the town that's already kind of the ass-end of the area), and I haven't had the opportunity to run up and read the sign.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Dyu1A.png[/img]
[QUOTE=laserguided;38476165]Once they're in AIM-9 range, I'm betting on the Flanker outdoing the F-35. Because at that range they can both see eachother clearly. Once the F-35 is out of missiles, its screwed unless they outnumber the enemy because of better performance capabilities of the opposing jets. Also, I think you got Brahmos mixed up with RVV-AE(AMRAAMSKI), Brahmos is a anti-ship/cruise missile and the RVV-AE is the equivilant of a AIM-120D. They're both solid jets, every offense has a just as good defense when it comes to the Su-35, or so it seems.
Once T-50 are put into serial production in about 2 years time, America will loose its stealth advantage if all goes as planned. Then a long time after that China will roll out its el cheapo stealth fighters.[/QUOTE]
The F-35 closes to inside the no-escape envelope for whatever armament it chooses, and then shoots down the Flanker.
Dog fights aren't going to happen. The cannon on the F-35 is for taking out helicopters or transport aircraft.
This is the entire point of the F-35. It reaches the point where you are physically incapable of outmaneuvering the missiles it carries, which is a pretty good distance, and then it takes you out. No maneuvering, no dog fighting, no nothing.
[editline]16th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=daijitsu;38477045]seriously how many of these things do we just kinda wreck whilst taking them for a spin?
to the side conversation, I was always a fan of the phantom. My grandpa on my mom's side was a pilot during Vietnam
also can someone identify this thing? it's been parked out in front of a random bar down the road from me (in the ass-end mini-strip of the town that's already kind of the ass-end of the area), and I haven't had the opportunity to run up and read the sign.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Dyu1A.png[/img][/QUOTE]
It is a Corsair.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-7_Corsair_II[/url]
[QUOTE=daijitsu;38477045]seriously how many of these things do we just kinda wreck whilst taking them for a spin?
to the side conversation, I was always a fan of the phantom. My grandpa on my mom's side was a pilot during Vietnam
also can someone identify this thing? it's been parked out in front of a random bar down the road from me (in the ass-end mini-strip of the town that's already kind of the ass-end of the area), and I haven't had the opportunity to run up and read the sign.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Dyu1A.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Corsair.
[editline]16th November 2012[/editline]
ninja
thanks guys
you know I guess Illinois isn't exciting enough to crash into
the planes just get bored and end up wasting away at a bar
Also, the no escape envelope is within the Su-35's range, plus the Su-35 is alot faster. The Su-35 has very nice defenses, I'm pretty sure its gear could pick up a AMRAAM and give the pilot enough time to do a high g turn. Its OLS would detect the flash from the missile launch, and give the pilot ample time to move away. Plus the radar warning receiver installed would pick up the AMRAAM's internal radar if it actually go that close. The Su-35 isn't a F-35, it can actually out turn an AMRAAM. They're both good aircraft, they both have their goods and their bads. But when a actual stealth fighter comes against a F-35, I'm going to wager on the stealth fighter out doing the strike aircraft. Makes me wonder why they're planning on replacing their carrier borne aircraft with F-35's, when they have no F-22's to back them up.
[editline]16th November 2012[/editline]
my automerge
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
