technically: no, block 4 is supposed to be the full-up version and it's being held back entirely by the stupid choice to make the magical universe simulator part of the block 4 requirements
>older weapons didn't have bugs and glitches
you're thinking of a small number of hyper-reliable and century-proven small arms like the M2 and ignoring every failed weapon from "the good old days", from janky oil-drip side feed tray MGs to primitive vacuum tube radars that never really worked right
>he thinks the m1 garand came out without problems >he thinks the 1903 came out without problems >he thinks the F-16 came out without problems >he thinks the F-18 came out without problems
lmao @ this moron
>has never met an M60 gunner >has never been yelled at by an M60 gunner for slamming down the feed cover on a SAW
Anon, no weapon is without issues. Even the M16 had issues.
My spear is the most flawless weapon ever made, it has no moving parts and is made from a single material (charcoal point for simplified logistics). It never, ever fails to operate at the required performance standards and is therefore an inherently superior weapon
yes and its ridiculously good
Shame I didn't save posts of a random aerospace autist anon from a couple months back who explained it better than I ever could
more that russia can't build modern electronics for shit, but they can still crutch along on the soviet union's legacy of good airframes for a while longer
>the soviet union's faked reputation of good airframes for a while longer
FTFY. The only plane they had pre-Ukraine that wasn't a decimal value K:D ratio was the Flanker, and that only saw combat against Mig-29s.
2 years ago
Anonymous
i said airframes, not fighters. the actual, physical designs of the planes are good. the radars, the missiles, the pilots, the interfaces, the causes etc are all quite bad, and unfortunately for russia they're by far the larger part of the system.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the actual, physical designs of the planes are good.
Not really. They're rough-built, can't be maintained well and require a lot more of it than western fighters, and mostly just show off dangerous circus acts instead of training to fight.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nah,RCS is absurd.And when WVR was still a thing they got beaten hard by Tiger 2s.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's such a shame Flanker is a Russian and not and American design. Imagine a Flanker with western F110 engines, avionics and weapons. It would be a beyond legendary airframe and in hindsight, superior to Eagle in practice:
- Flanker is just bigger so you can attach all the shit on it without making it too crammed.
- It has frickton of fuel capacity, you will never see a Flanker with external fuel tanks. In fact, for short range missions requiring maneuvering, it takes off with half fuel.
- It has a more "lifty" high alpha, slow speed optimized airframe compared to Eagle, which should give better payload, range, and loiter time.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>in hindsight, superior to Eagle
nope >Flanker is just bigger so you can attach all the shit on it without making it too crammed
You can attach less on it than you can on an Eagle, or even F-4 Phantom. > It has frickton of fuel capacity, you will never see a Flanker with external fuel tanks
You never see flankers operate the missions Strike Eagles do, or fly far away from their airbase. The whole fuel capacity thing is same as CFTs. US designs fuel capacity so that you reach mtow with full fuel and weapons, while russians go above that. Maybe they are trying to save money on fuel tanks, idk. >It has a more "lifty" high alpha, slow speed optimized airframe compared to Eagle
And it's worse at high speed high altitude work that air superiority planes are meant to do. Meanwhile for strike role any decent fighter would be more than maneuverable and there would hardly be a point in going beyond that.
Dogfights hardly happen anymore, stealth and long range targeting are what matter. Most aerial battles are over before the other plane is even visible on the horizon.
>Is this aircraft that has performed strike missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria and air policing in Europe with several different operator nations, combat-ready
>strike missions >we dropped some bombs on unsuspecting farmers with guns >great job guys none better
I want there to be an actual war between great powers if only just to expose the frauds once and for all. I don't believe for one bit that ANYTHING in American armories actually accomplish what they are advertised by the MIC to do.
Block IV is also bringing in the Adaptive Cycle engine which just adds insult to injury to non-peers like China. I have no idea how regime-change targets like Iran copes.
BTW the real reason why Russia ditched the Su-57 before mass production ISN’T because of money. They could have made a squadron and fly them at parades while reporting they had 200 or something. The real reason is: because it SUCKED. They were completely unhappy with it and felt that it would better dead rather than cause more black eyes for Russia.
Also that’s probably also the real reason for the Armata being canned.
Yeah, b/c, let's be real, all of the Russian vaporware wunderwaffe are all marketed at poos. This is why they operate about 3x more T-90s than the Russians themselves do.
Czechs are interested in getting 24 F-35s, and at the same time, SAAB offered for their 14 JAS-39 Gripens on lease to be transferred to Czechs for free, hoping that they will keep the Gripen, and buy ten more.
considering its potential adversaries? yes
Yes, there's almost 900 of them built and Israel regularly flies them against S400s with zero losses.
things that never happened for $500
You forget about the deal between Russia and Israel where they do not target Israeli planes in Syria with S400.
> F-35B: 31 July 2015 (USMC); F-35A: 2 August 2016 (USAF); F-35C: 28 February 2019 (USN);
>Number built: 800+ as of June 2022
>Status: In production
technically: no, block 4 is supposed to be the full-up version and it's being held back entirely by the stupid choice to make the magical universe simulator part of the block 4 requirements
practically: yeah it's ready to rock and roll
>magical universe simulator
???
joint simulator environment, aka we want to be able to train pilots and validate designs on the same software
So basically the F-35 needs to run ARMA 3
no, a bigass warehouse on edwards AFB needs to run arma 7.5+CATIA for the F-35 to be considered finished
bruh arma 3 is based on 2010 era engine technology, this fricking thing needs to run on ArmA 5
Kalman filters for everything it sees. From DC to daylight.
Eh. Block 3F is combat capable. Block 4 is just an upgrade program like how Block 5, 6, 7, etc. are.
>Modern weapons are now like my videogames.
>Full of bugs and glitches.
I hate Modernity.
Also releasing an obvious beta to be patched later on.
Better than losing 18 a year because you didn't test jack shit.
Call me when you have more than 10.
No Air Guard unit will ever have better F-16s than Alabamas red tails
It's pretty fun to look up all the air ng units from individual states that could frick up every other country's air force
I'm looking up and seeing my state only operates A-10 warthogs in their Air NG unit.
Really curious why we need CAS planes instead of fighter interceptors...
>older weapons didn't have bugs and glitches
you're thinking of a small number of hyper-reliable and century-proven small arms like the M2 and ignoring every failed weapon from "the good old days", from janky oil-drip side feed tray MGs to primitive vacuum tube radars that never really worked right
>pic
SOVL
>he thinks the m1 garand came out without problems
>he thinks the 1903 came out without problems
>he thinks the F-16 came out without problems
>he thinks the F-18 came out without problems
lmao @ this moron
That f18 article was definitely written by Pierre sprey
And all of the 35 articles lead back to him indirectly, too.
Hey,remember that time Sodak and Washington fought Kirishima?What a totally bug free experience.
>has never met an M60 gunner
>has never been yelled at by an M60 gunner for slamming down the feed cover on a SAW
Anon, no weapon is without issues. Even the M16 had issues.
My spear is the most flawless weapon ever made, it has no moving parts and is made from a single material (charcoal point for simplified logistics). It never, ever fails to operate at the required performance standards and is therefore an inherently superior weapon
>using fancy rope to attach spearpoint
Sharpened stick much better for Ugg.
Thog, the tip broke off again and wood rot set in when you left it in the rain.
yes and its ridiculously good
Shame I didn't save posts of a random aerospace autist anon from a couple months back who explained it better than I ever could
Can You at least give TL;Dr ?
F-35 with us Nord are well implomented and has flown interceptions along the Nor-Rus Border
Not against a Su-57, and it never will.
>muh cobra
lol, lmao even
Why are Russians obsessed with the the Pugachev Cobra?
It looks impressive.
America has been the only country to realize dogfighting is dead and BVR killed it
more that russia can't build modern electronics for shit, but they can still crutch along on the soviet union's legacy of good airframes for a while longer
>the soviet union's faked reputation of good airframes for a while longer
FTFY. The only plane they had pre-Ukraine that wasn't a decimal value K:D ratio was the Flanker, and that only saw combat against Mig-29s.
i said airframes, not fighters. the actual, physical designs of the planes are good. the radars, the missiles, the pilots, the interfaces, the causes etc are all quite bad, and unfortunately for russia they're by far the larger part of the system.
>the actual, physical designs of the planes are good.
Not really. They're rough-built, can't be maintained well and require a lot more of it than western fighters, and mostly just show off dangerous circus acts instead of training to fight.
Nah,RCS is absurd.And when WVR was still a thing they got beaten hard by Tiger 2s.
It's such a shame Flanker is a Russian and not and American design. Imagine a Flanker with western F110 engines, avionics and weapons. It would be a beyond legendary airframe and in hindsight, superior to Eagle in practice:
- Flanker is just bigger so you can attach all the shit on it without making it too crammed.
- It has frickton of fuel capacity, you will never see a Flanker with external fuel tanks. In fact, for short range missions requiring maneuvering, it takes off with half fuel.
- It has a more "lifty" high alpha, slow speed optimized airframe compared to Eagle, which should give better payload, range, and loiter time.
>in hindsight, superior to Eagle
nope
>Flanker is just bigger so you can attach all the shit on it without making it too crammed
You can attach less on it than you can on an Eagle, or even F-4 Phantom.
> It has frickton of fuel capacity, you will never see a Flanker with external fuel tanks
You never see flankers operate the missions Strike Eagles do, or fly far away from their airbase. The whole fuel capacity thing is same as CFTs. US designs fuel capacity so that you reach mtow with full fuel and weapons, while russians go above that. Maybe they are trying to save money on fuel tanks, idk.
>It has a more "lifty" high alpha, slow speed optimized airframe compared to Eagle
And it's worse at high speed high altitude work that air superiority planes are meant to do. Meanwhile for strike role any decent fighter would be more than maneuverable and there would hardly be a point in going beyond that.
Even trying to get into a dogfight with 5th gen is suicide. When 6th gen comes many nations may as well give up having an air force at all.
Dogfights hardly happen anymore, stealth and long range targeting are what matter. Most aerial battles are over before the other plane is even visible on the horizon.
Plenty of other western countries are fully aware of this as well, its only the sunhumans that seem to have trouble with the concept
Are you implying that Congress is subhuman?
Because you’d be right
I didn't mean to but I do agree with that assertion, sort of like an inverse Freudian slip
Id include every elected official in that description
>Su-57
You mean then 10 or so prototypes they actually have?
That Su-57 would be shot out of the sky before entering visual range
>Su-57 would be shot out of the sky before entering visual range
You mean it would crash on takeoff
>superplane kills itself
turns out russia had the troony air force all along
also checked
double dubs of truth
I hate russians so fricking much
I do not understand the combat value of this move, slowing down makes it easier for the missile to hit you, not harder
He saw top gun and thinks they're immune to missiles
when a bf109 is on your tail you can do it to get behind them
Just a worse prop hang then
Hard to be combat ready against a plane that will never leave the factory.
I was literally there for the first combat deployment several years ago and they have taken over regular deployments from F-22s units ever since.
>Is this aircraft that has performed strike missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria and air policing in Europe with several different operator nations, combat-ready
>air policing
ITT basicslly
>zero dogfight kills
>1980 and later
>Dogfighting
>strike missions
>we dropped some bombs on unsuspecting farmers with guns
>great job guys none better
I want there to be an actual war between great powers if only just to expose the frauds once and for all. I don't believe for one bit that ANYTHING in American armories actually accomplish what they are advertised by the MIC to do.
>t. outed as a fraud 3 months ago
Block IV is also bringing in the Adaptive Cycle engine which just adds insult to injury to non-peers like China. I have no idea how regime-change targets like Iran copes.
BTW the real reason why Russia ditched the Su-57 before mass production ISN’T because of money. They could have made a squadron and fly them at parades while reporting they had 200 or something. The real reason is: because it SUCKED. They were completely unhappy with it and felt that it would better dead rather than cause more black eyes for Russia.
Also that’s probably also the real reason for the Armata being canned.
india finally found a program too fricking stupid for them
Yeah, b/c, let's be real, all of the Russian vaporware wunderwaffe are all marketed at poos. This is why they operate about 3x more T-90s than the Russians themselves do.
It has been for a few years now, just hasn't been necessary yet.
They've been flying combat missions for half a decade at this point so yes
By sheer number of airframes yes it's ready.
none of these qualities infer that it is combat ready
The fact that it been flying combat missions for more than half a decade at this point says it is
combat missions against insurgents with AKs..
So?
And in exercises it's been flying against pretty much everything at far higher difficulties and winning easily.
And doing it while gimped
Against Russian-supplied AA systems like the S300.
Did you forget about it donging a Pantsir in Syria?
That's not what infer means, moron.
I dont see the problem
Try again
It's ready for my wiener, that's for sure
L-lewd!
it's done a lot of bombing in a hostile airspace and even some air-to-air (against drones)
Czechs are interested in getting 24 F-35s, and at the same time, SAAB offered for their 14 JAS-39 Gripens on lease to be transferred to Czechs for free, hoping that they will keep the Gripen, and buy ten more.
If I'm not mistaken, the Israelis have been using it in combat for years now.
This is the only IDF girl that does it for me