Best Fighter Jet

[Ereria]

I like the idea of F-35 . I hope they develop it further and it becomes a success.

[Novus America]

The F-22 is only expensive because we did not build enough. Same with the B-2. R&D is a sunk cost we already paid so we could build them a much lower cost per unit now.

And yet, its unit cost is still lower than the Vista Plane. Also, sunk cost fallacy.

No, the sunk cost fallacy only applies to things that have lost their value. The F-22 has value. The sunk cost fallacy would only apply if it was a fundamentally bad plane.

Only SOME, not all sunk costs result in the sunk cost fallacy. Sunk costs are a real thing you know.

[Novus America]

I like the idea of F-35 . I hope they develop it further and it becomes a success.

It has literally billions of lines of code. All of the problems cited are software, even that War is Boring article said the test plane had its fly by wire set to limit maneuverability. Bugs are inevitable in billions of lines of code. They are being fixed. They have to be discovered before they are fixed. Just because a new product needs code debugging in the prototype phase does not mean it is a bad product. Every new product with lots of software goes through the same thing.

[Grenartia]

1. Keep in mind that "Vista Plane" has been the first US fighter to go through it's development within the age of the internet and hence has been under a microscope. The US has also been strangely open with it's problems, likely because keeping them a secret was too difficult with the amount of clients involved in the project.

2. Meanwhile F-22 prototypes could have exploded mid-air and we won't find out until 2030.

1. I'm pretty sure the problems with Vista Plane are inherent to trying to design a Jack of All Planes.

2. Where are you getting that from?

Actually, its really just the nukes that we're afriad of.

Which is good. I hope the Russians are afraid of our nukes too, because we do not need another major war, conventional or nuclear.

And I'd agree.

And yet, its unit cost is still lower than the Vista Plane. Also, sunk cost fallacy.

No, the sunk cost fallacy only applies to things that have lost their value. The F-22 has value. The sunk cost fallacy would only apply if it was a fundamentally bad plane.

Only SOME, not all sunk costs result in the sunk cost fallacy. Sunk costs are a real thing you know.

I didn't say the F-22 didn't have value.

Also, the Vista Plane is a fundamentally bad plane, as I've already shown.

I like the idea of F-35 . I hope they develop it further and it becomes a success.

It has literally billions of lines of code. All of the problems cited are software, even that War is Boring article said the test plane had its fly by wire set to limit maneuverability. Bugs are inevitable in billions of lines of code. They are being fixed. They have to be discovered before they are fixed. Just because a new product needs code debugging in the prototype phase does not mean it is a bad product. Every new product with lots of software goes through the same thing.

Yes, because flawed fuel tanks and fueldralic systems (which seems like an inherently flawed concept in and of itself) leading to increased likelihood of damage from lighting strikes and other fire sources is totally due to a flaw in code. As is performance degredation, including taking nearly a minute longer than the F-16 to accelerate. As is requiring several complex manuevers to reack top speed, which consume the onboard fuel. As is an ejection seat failure. As is engine replacement taking 50 hours longer than requested. As are maintenance tools not working. As are flaws due to the single engine configuration. As is relying on 'unacceptable workarounds" to maintain operational sustainability. As is airframe buffetting and Transonic Roll Off. As is wing drop that has plagued the plane for 6 years, possibly only being solved at the expense of manueverability or stealth. As are maintenance problems limiting flights to 2 times a week. As is the aforementioned buffetting degrading flight control systems, navigation, and weapons aiming. As is being less manueverable than an F-16 with wing tanks.

To say nothing of the fact that this inherent reliance on computer systems means the plane is fucked if its successfully hacked, or the computer is otherwise knocked offline/rendered inoperable.

[Husseinarti]

To say nothing of the fact that this inherent reliance on computer systems means the plane is fucked if its successfully hacked, or the computer is otherwise knocked offline/rendered inoperable.

Yes!

Let us return to the days of real air-to-air combat!

This 'electronically scanned radar' bullshit can just get hacked into! Then the terrorist scum will take over our planes and use them to do 9/11 Part 2 again!!

We should go back to the days of mechanically scanned radar, analog displays, remove all this 'digital interface' bullshit, and also go back to the days of Magnetic influence as the primary guidance for our air-to-air missiles, instead of this hackable 'infrashit (not!) guidance' technobabble!

Hell, lets just do away with radars and missiles all together! Imagine the kind of super modern F-86 we could make today! The only missiles we can use are nuclear air-to-air missiles! The way God intended air warfare to be fought!

[Grenartia]

To say nothing of the fact that this inherent reliance on computer systems means the plane is fucked if its successfully hacked, or the computer is otherwise knocked offline/rendered inoperable.

Yes!

Let us return to the days of real air-to-air combat!

This 'electronically scanned radar' bullshit can just get hacked into! Then the terrorist scum will take over our planes and use them to do 9/11 Part 2 again!!

We should go back to the days of mechanically scanned radar, analog displays, remove all this 'digital interface' bullshit, and also go back to the days of Magnetic influence as the primary guidance for our air-to-air missiles, instead of this hackable 'infrashit (not!) guidance' technobabble!

Hell, lets just do away with radars and missiles all together! Imagine the kind of super modern F-86 we could make today! The only missiles we can use are nuclear air-to-air missiles! The way God intended air warfare to be fought!

Yeah, sure, blatatnly take my statement entirely out of context, whydontya? That's totally intellectually honest.

[Vitaphone Racing]

1. Keep in mind that "Vista Plane" has been the first US fighter to go through it's development within the age of the internet and hence has been under a microscope. The US has also been strangely open with it's problems, likely because keeping them a secret was too difficult with the amount of clients involved in the project.

2. Meanwhile F-22 prototypes could have exploded mid-air and we won't find out until 2030.

1. I'm pretty sure the problems with Vista Plane are inherent to trying to design a Jack of All Planes.

I wouldn't suggest there are any problems inherent to designing a multi-role aircraft, because there seems to be many multi-roles getting around today that don't suffer from inherent problems?

2. Where are you getting that from?

The fact that F-22 testing was not publicized in the same manner as the F-35, nor has any other fighter aircraft.

It has literally billions of lines of code. All of the problems cited are software, even that War is Boring article said the test plane had its fly by wire set to limit maneuverability. Bugs are inevitable in billions of lines of code. They are being fixed. They have to be discovered before they are fixed. Just because a new product needs code debugging in the prototype phase does not mean it is a bad product. Every new product with lots of software goes through the same thing.

Yes, because flawed fuel tanks and fueldralic systems (which seems like an inherently flawed concept in and of itself) leading to increased likelihood of damage from lighting strikes and other fire sources is totally due to a flaw in code. As is performance degredation, including taking nearly a minute longer than the F-16 to accelerate. As is requiring several complex manuevers to reack top speed, which consume the onboard fuel. As is an ejection seat failure. As is engine replacement taking 50 hours longer than requested. As are maintenance tools not working. As are flaws due to the single engine configuration. As is relying on 'unacceptable workarounds" to maintain operational sustainability. As is airframe buffetting and Transonic Roll Off. As is wing drop that has plagued the plane for 6 years, possibly only being solved at the expense of manueverability or stealth. As are maintenance problems limiting flights to 2 times a week. As is the aforementioned buffetting degrading flight control systems, navigation, and weapons aiming. As is being less manueverable than an F-16 with wing tanks.

Just as well the plane is still in development.

Do you ever see people building a house on the side of the road, and then pull over and say "fuck, you pricks are incompetent! There's no fucking roof! No toilet! The floor is just concrete! My house is way better than this!" because you seem like the person who would do such a thing.

To say nothing of the fact that this inherent reliance on computer systems means the plane is fucked if its successfully hacked, or the computer is otherwise knocked offline/rendered inoperable.

Uh huh

[Grenartia]

1. I'm pretty sure the problems with Vista Plane are inherent to trying to design a Jack of All Planes.

1. I wouldn't suggest there are any problems inherent to designing a multi-role aircraft, because there seems to be many multi-roles getting around today that don't suffer from inherent problems?

2. Where are you getting that from?

2. The fact that F-22 testing was not publicized in the same manner as the F-35, nor has any other fighter aircraft.

Yes, because flawed fuel tanks and fueldralic systems (which seems like an inherently flawed concept in and of itself) leading to increased likelihood of damage from lighting strikes and other fire sources is totally due to a flaw in code. As is performance degredation, including taking nearly a minute longer than the F-16 to accelerate. As is requiring several complex manuevers to reack top speed, which consume the onboard fuel. As is an ejection seat failure. As is engine replacement taking 50 hours longer than requested. As are maintenance tools not working. As are flaws due to the single engine configuration. As is relying on 'unacceptable workarounds" to maintain operational sustainability. As is airframe buffetting and Transonic Roll Off. As is wing drop that has plagued the plane for 6 years, possibly only being solved at the expense of manueverability or stealth. As are maintenance problems limiting flights to 2 times a week. As is the aforementioned buffetting degrading flight control systems, navigation, and weapons aiming. As is being less manueverable than an F-16 with wing tanks.

Just as well the plane is still in development.

3. Do you ever see people building a house on the side of the road, and then pull over and say "fuck, you pricks are incompetent! There's no fucking roof! No toilet! The floor is just concrete! My house is way better than this!" because you seem like the person who would do such a thing.

To say nothing of the fact that this inherent reliance on computer systems means the plane is fucked if its successfully hacked, or the computer is otherwise knocked offline/rendered inoperable.

Uh huh

1. Not all multiroles are Jack of All Planes.

2. So, straight out of your ass, then. I hope you at least keep your nails trimmed.

3. A more apt analogy would be if they were building a mansion with bleeding-edge integrated tech, and then started sacrificing quality of design and cutting corners.

[Imperializt Russia]

It is invading Ukraine. Russian troops are on Ukrainian soil. That is an invasion. Yes it is not an all out one, but Russia with its weak economy, 1 year conscripts and crappy logistics is in no shape to launch an all out attack. The point is Russian troops have clearly shown to not be worth much in real battles. Even the hapless Ukrainian Army can beat them in some defensive battles. I mean that is just sad.

And again vs NATO. NATO has around 18 times the economy and 5 times the population. The fact that we are even scared of Russia at all is a sad commentary on how horribly we have neglected our militaries. We could easily build a force that would have Russia outnumbered and out gunned 3 time over if we actually tried.

Actually, its really just the nukes that we're afriad of.

It's really not.

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes!

Let us return to the days of real air-to-air combat!

This 'electronically scanned radar' bullshit can just get hacked into! Then the terrorist scum will take over our planes and use them to do 9/11 Part 2 again!!

We should go back to the days of mechanically scanned radar, analog displays, remove all this 'digital interface' bullshit, and also go back to the days of Magnetic influence as the primary guidance for our air-to-air missiles, instead of this hackable 'infrashit (not!) guidance' technobabble!

Hell, lets just do away with radars and missiles all together! Imagine the kind of super modern F-86 we could make today! The only missiles we can use are nuclear air-to-air missiles! The way God intended air warfare to be fought!

Yeah, sure, blatatnly take my statement entirely out of context, whydontya? That's totally intellectually honest.

It's because your statement was crap.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Most of the expense for modern aircraft is design and testing. The beauty of remaking A-10s is that all of that is literally done and paid for. All we have to do is update certain parameters (better armor, better structural materials, better avionics), and it'll be better than before, and cost less than the F-35 has thus far.

idk then. The A-10 would likely find use in getting rid of light armor, infantry. Killing T-72s is probably stretching it. T-80s and whatever tank the russians came up with probably has better armor, ERA and other thing that make them more survivible against an A-10.

There is this colour booklet that specifically instructed A-10 pilots to not aim for the entire front and the side turret of T-62's because at those angles vs those plates the 30 mm API round would fail completely to penetrate. T-72 Urals I presume would be entirely no go and if attempted would probably lead to a mission-killed Warthog from a MANPADS BTR instead.

[Novus America]

1. Keep in mind that "Vista Plane" has been the first US fighter to go through it's development within the age of the internet and hence has been under a microscope. The US has also been strangely open with it's problems, likely because keeping them a secret was too difficult with the amount of clients involved in the project.

2. Meanwhile F-22 prototypes could have exploded mid-air and we won't find out until 2030.

1. I'm pretty sure the problems with Vista Plane are inherent to trying to design a Jack of All Planes.

2. Where are you getting that from?

Which is good. I hope the Russians are afraid of our nukes too, because we do not need another major war, conventional or nuclear.

And I'd agree.

No, the sunk cost fallacy only applies to things that have lost their value. The F-22 has value. The sunk cost fallacy would only apply if it was a fundamentally bad plane.

Only SOME, not all sunk costs result in the sunk cost fallacy. Sunk costs are a real thing you know.

I didn't say the F-22 didn't have value.

Also, the Vista Plane is a fundamentally bad plane, as I've already shown.

It has literally billions of lines of code. All of the problems cited are software, even that War is Boring article said the test plane had its fly by wire set to limit maneuverability. Bugs are inevitable in billions of lines of code. They are being fixed. They have to be discovered before they are fixed. Just because a new product needs code debugging in the prototype phase does not mean it is a bad product. Every new product with lots of software goes through the same thing.

Yes, because flawed fuel tanks and fueldralic systems (which seems like an inherently flawed concept in and of itself) leading to increased likelihood of damage from lighting strikes and other fire sources is totally due to a flaw in code. As is performance degredation, including taking nearly a minute longer than the F-16 to accelerate. As is requiring several complex manuevers to reack top speed, which consume the onboard fuel. As is an ejection seat failure. As is engine replacement taking 50 hours longer than requested. As are maintenance tools not working. As are flaws due to the single engine configuration. As is relying on 'unacceptable workarounds" to maintain operational sustainability. As is airframe buffetting and Transonic Roll Off. As is wing drop that has plagued the plane for 6 years, possibly only being solved at the expense of manueverability or stealth. As are maintenance problems limiting flights to 2 times a week. As is the aforementioned buffetting degrading flight control systems, navigation, and weapons aiming. As is being less manueverable than an F-16 with wing tanks.

To say nothing of the fact that this inherent reliance on computer systems means the plane is fucked if its successfully hacked, or the computer is otherwise knocked offline/rendered inoperable.

Some of these issues are software related. For example as said before the test models have their fly by wire set to limit acceleration according to that War is Boring article. A test plane capable of 9gs with a 6g limit will not perform like a combat model pulling 9gs. Yes the F-35 cannot at 6gs do what the F-16 can at 9. No plane can.

The rest are common problems. The Eurofighter and Raptor had similar problems at first. Complex systems always have problems in the testing phase. Hence why we have testing. The purpose of testing is to find problems.

[Independent Republic of Not My Problem]

"War is Boring" should never be cited as a source. Everything they post is either cherry picked or straight bullshit.

[Imperializt Russia]

"War is Boring" should never be cited as a source. Everything they post is either cherry picked or straight bullshit.

That's the problem with blogs, especially defence and science blogs, that aren't written by defence or science experts or organisations. Even the blogs of those types can be wrong or more commonly, biased.

[Husseinarti]

I'm going to make a defense blog about how everyone should use the AR series.

[Rhoderberg]

1. I expect Saddam's SAM sites were capable of a bit more damage than MANPADS.

By the time the A-10's arrived, Saddam's SAM sites were getting wrecked by Coalition SEAD operations. However, long-ranged SAM sites aren't what makes the A-10 obsolete, SHORADS and MANPADS do. Why? Because in order to use it's gun, the A-10 has to fly directly into the targeting profile of both types of weapons, something which it cannot survive.

It's also worth noting that the majority of the kills claimed by A-10's during the Gulf Wars were preformed with PGMs rather than the GAU-8.

2. Except, you know, anti-missile countermeasures are a thing. You can't misdirect a bullet away from you. Especially not one fired from the Avenger.

Hence the pK of 20%.

The GAU-8's problem is that it can't penetrate anything more modern than a T-62 across the frontal aspect, and has to put the aircraft into the teeth of short-range air defenses to do so.

3. I'm aware.

Than why bother posting?

4. Ok, I take back that it was designed for mediocrity, but it definitely is, nonetheless. In a way, that makes it even worse, since it's being brought forward, and having had the bar continually lowered for it to barely make it over said bar.

Do you have any sources for that fucking wall of text?

5. Well, given the fact that we're planning on buying over 10 for each Raptor we've bought, and the basic idea is to heavily rely on them, I can be forgiven for making that assumption.

Why wouldn't we? The F-35 is intended to do a variety of things, rather than the F-22's focus on killing enemy fighter aircraft.

Not to mention the fact that three branches are buying the F-35, while only the air force is buying the F-22.

6. See above. Vista Plane still doesn't make the cut. The simple fact is, designing a Jack of all Planes from scratch is an inherently shit idea. But don't take my word for it.

Why, should I listen to the sources you pulled out of your ass instead?

7. Again, we didn't seem to have a problem in Baghdad.

The US military of the 1970's could have won against Iraq, that's hardly much of an achievement.

tldr; not only are you wrong, you're also woefully misinformed, stop before you embarrass yourself.

[Husseinarti]

The US Army in the 1970s would have had serious issues against Iraqi MiG-29s and MiG-25s.

Also, the T-72Ms used by the Iraqis would have been within the same capabilities as the M60A1s and the M48A5s in service at the time in fact the T-72s would have probs outclassed them. The T-55s would have had a fighting chance. Kinda.

It would have been a massive cluster fuck, as both sides would have also pushed thought Kuwait itself as the primary attack, with the Marines actually landing in order to divert Iraqi troops from the primary coalition front.

[The Sotoan Union]

The US Army in the 1970s would have had serious issues against Iraqi MiG-29s and MiG-25s.

Also, the T-72Ms used by the Iraqis would have been within the same capabilities as the M60A1s and the M48A5s in service at the time in fact the T-72s would have probs outclassed them. The T-55s would have had a fighting chance. Kinda.

It would have been a massive cluster fuck, as both sides would have also pushed thought Kuwait itself as the primary attack, with the Marines actually landing in order to divert Iraqi troops from the primary coalition front.

I would imagine they would have trouble against MIG-29s given that those entered service in the 80s. Similarly the British in 1927 would probably have trouble with BF-109s.

[Husseinarti]

The US Army in the 1970s would have had serious issues against Iraqi MiG-29s and MiG-25s.

Also, the T-72Ms used by the Iraqis would have been within the same capabilities as the M60A1s and the M48A5s in service at the time in fact the T-72s would have probs outclassed them. The T-55s would have had a fighting chance. Kinda.

It would have been a massive cluster fuck, as both sides would have also pushed thought Kuwait itself as the primary attack, with the Marines actually landing in order to divert Iraqi troops from the primary coalition front.

I would imagine they would have trouble against MIG-29s given that those entered service in the 80s. Similarly the British in 1927 would probably have trouble with BF-109s.

I mean the British has trouble with BF-109s in 1940.

However they had the advantage of defending rather than attacking, so they typically would win.

Especially during the Battle of Britain, in which German aircraft running on fumes were limited to about 15 minutes of actual combat time.

[The Sotoan Union]

I would imagine they would have trouble against MIG-29s given that those entered service in the 80s. Similarly the British in 1927 would probably have trouble with BF-109s.

I mean the British has trouble with BF-109s in 1940.

However they had the advantage of defending rather than attacking, so they typically would win.

Especially during the Battle of Britain, in which German aircraft running on fumes were limited to about 15 minutes of actual combat time.

The point though is that I would imagine they'd have trouble against something from the future.

[Rhoderberg]

The US Army in the 1970s would have had serious issues against Iraqi MiG-29s and MiG-25s.

Also, the T-72Ms used by the Iraqis would have been within the same capabilities as the M60A1s and the M48A5s in service at the time in fact the T-72s would have probs outclassed them. The T-55s would have had a fighting chance. Kinda.

It would have been a massive cluster fuck, as both sides would have also pushed thought Kuwait itself as the primary attack, with the Marines actually landing in order to divert Iraqi troops from the primary coalition front.

I'm glad I was wrong about the bit of half-assed hyperbole I tacked on the end of my post rather than the post itself.

Thanks for the correction, though, I appreciate it.

[Husseinarti]

The US Army in the 1970s would have had serious issues against Iraqi MiG-29s and MiG-25s.

Also, the T-72Ms used by the Iraqis would have been within the same capabilities as the M60A1s and the M48A5s in service at the time in fact the T-72s would have probs outclassed them. The T-55s would have had a fighting chance. Kinda.

It would have been a massive cluster fuck, as both sides would have also pushed thought Kuwait itself as the primary attack, with the Marines actually landing in order to divert Iraqi troops from the primary coalition front.

I'm glad I was wrong about the bit of half-assed hyperbole I tacked on the end of my post rather than the post itself.

Thanks for the correction, though, I appreciate it.

I mean its the only wrong thing you've said so far.

And like I said, it wasn't even about the topic.

[Rhoderberg]

I'm glad I was wrong about the bit of half-assed hyperbole I tacked on the end of my post rather than the post itself.

Thanks for the correction, though, I appreciate it.

I mean its the only wrong thing you've said so far.

And like I said, it wasn't even about the topic.

I'd hope so, we've been repeating the same points since the thread started.

[Grenartia]

idk then. The A-10 would likely find use in getting rid of light armor, infantry. Killing T-72s is probably stretching it. T-80s and whatever tank the russians came up with probably has better armor, ERA and other thing that make them more survivible against an A-10.

There is this colour booklet that specifically instructed A-10 pilots to not aim for the entire front and the side turret of T-62's because at those angles vs those plates the 30 mm API round would fail completely to penetrate. T-72 Urals I presume would be entirely no go and if attempted would probably lead to a mission-killed Warthog from a MANPADS BTR instead.

An interesting quote from the article which ultimately kills any hope of the F-35 being an effective CAS platform:

“Assuming that Iraq and Afghanistan are typical of future conflicts—and that is not a rock-solid assumption—then I think the A-10 type of close-air support weapon to be useful,” he says. “Fast movers cannot do the job as well. I’ve flown CAS in fast movers and it just isn’t going to happen in many situations. Speed in CAS is a detriment, not an asset.”

[Grenartia]

1. I'm pretty sure the problems with Vista Plane are inherent to trying to design a Jack of All Planes.

2. Where are you getting that from?



And I'd agree.



I didn't say the F-22 didn't have value.

Also, the Vista Plane is a fundamentally bad plane, as I've already shown.



Yes, because flawed fuel tanks and fueldralic systems (which seems like an inherently flawed concept in and of itself) leading to increased likelihood of damage from lighting strikes and other fire sources is totally due to a flaw in code. As is performance degredation, including taking nearly a minute longer than the F-16 to accelerate. As is requiring several complex manuevers to reack top speed, which consume the onboard fuel. As is an ejection seat failure. As is engine replacement taking 50 hours longer than requested. As are maintenance tools not working. As are flaws due to the single engine configuration. As is relying on 'unacceptable workarounds" to maintain operational sustainability. As is airframe buffetting and Transonic Roll Off. As is wing drop that has plagued the plane for 6 years, possibly only being solved at the expense of manueverability or stealth. As are maintenance problems limiting flights to 2 times a week. As is the aforementioned buffetting degrading flight control systems, navigation, and weapons aiming. As is being less manueverable than an F-16 with wing tanks.

To say nothing of the fact that this inherent reliance on computer systems means the plane is fucked if its successfully hacked, or the computer is otherwise knocked offline/rendered inoperable.

Some of these issues are software related. For example as said before the test models have their fly by wire set to limit acceleration according to that War is Boring article. A test plane capable of 9gs with a 6g limit will not perform like a combat model pulling 9gs. Yes the F-35 cannot at 6gs do what the F-16 can at 9. No plane can.

The rest are common problems. The Eurofighter and Raptor had similar problems at first. Complex systems always have problems in the testing phase. Hence why we have testing. The purpose of testing is to find problems.

Except, these problems are being exasperated by trying to make a Jack of All Planes, not only for one nation, but multiple buyers. Its a wonder we've even gotten as far as we have. Vista Plane is the inevitable result.