Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[NewLakotah]

Blasphemey!

Well it's either that or Soviet birds. There really is not much to chose from that's not american and the Fail-35.

I don't get the hate on the F-35, personally. Yeah it has plenty of development issues but most of them stem from government bureaucracy.

[Britinthia]

Blasphemey!

Well it's either that or Soviet birds. There really is not much to chose from that's not american and the Fail-35.

Which is why I'm being true to NS and modifying a current fighter to suit my purposes using RL proposals as a base to work from.

As for the F-35 I dont dislike it, but its the go-to fighter these days and thats boring.

[The Akasha Colony]

Well it's either that or Soviet birds. There really is not much to chose from that's not american and the Fail-35.

I don't get the hate on the F-35, personally. Yeah it has plenty of development issues but most of them stem from government bureaucracy.

And the fact that it's basically three different but related aircraft.

[Purpelia]

Well it's either that or Soviet birds. There really is not much to chose from that's not american and the Fail-35.

I don't get the hate on the F-35, personally. Yeah it has plenty of development issues but most of them stem from government bureaucracy.

The main problem is that it is still not in service and no one knows when it will be. And even if it had been given a magically perfect development cycle it's doubtful that it would have been done today since it's as others have said three different but related aircraft as a result of trying to do too much in a single platform.

[Oaledonia]

Fail-35.

Not even close to the truth.

[NewLakotah]

I don't get the hate on the F-35, personally. Yeah it has plenty of development issues but most of them stem from government bureaucracy.

The main problem is that it is still not in service and no one knows when it will be. And even if it had been given a magically perfect development cycle it's doubtful that it would have been done today since it's as others have said three different but related aircraft as a result of trying to do too much in a single platform.

Well, it actually does have a release date starting in December 2015. And since its not in service how can you say its a fail?

[Purpelia]

The main problem is that it is still not in service and no one knows when it will be. And even if it had been given a magically perfect development cycle it's doubtful that it would have been done today since it's as others have said three different but related aircraft as a result of trying to do too much in a single platform.

Well, it actually does have a release date starting in December 2015. And since its not in service how can you say its a fail?

Because without it being in service as of yet we don't really have any empirical data to draw upon as to what its actual performance will be. For all we know it might turn out to be the next F-22 or Sgt. York. Thus it fails in the sense that using it for anything here is about the equivalent of using the Su-47.

[Britinthia]

I don't get the hate on the F-35, personally. Yeah it has plenty of development issues but most of them stem from government bureaucracy.

The main problem is that it is still not in service and no one knows when it will be. And even if it had been given a magically perfect development cycle it's doubtful that it would have been done today since it's as others have said three different but related aircraft as a result of trying to do too much in a single platform.

Had they seperated the B variant and developed it seperately then the A and C versions wouldnt have faced so many problems and could very well be in service already. Not to mention the RN may have stuck with the C variant for their new carriers and wouldnt have to hang their collective heads in shame of soon to be having two carriers with no fighters.

[Purpelia]

Had they seperated the B variant and developed it seperately then the A and C versions wouldnt have faced so many problems and could very well be in service already. Not to mention the RN may have stuck with the C variant for their new carriers and wouldnt have to hang their collective heads in shame of soon to be having two carriers with no fighters.

But they didn't. Which made them fail.

It's like observing a chess game where one side loses and than saying: "If only you had moved that queen over there 15 moves ago..."

[NewLakotah]

Well, it actually does have a release date starting in December 2015. And since its not in service how can you say its a fail?

Because without it being in service as of yet we don't really have any empirical data to draw upon as to what its actual performance will be. For all we know it might turn out to be the next F-22 or Sgt. York. Thus it fails in the sense that using it for anything here is about the equivalent of using the Su-47.

So in other words, its a fail because it hasn't been in use yet so we don't know what it will do?

[Purpelia]

Because without it being in service as of yet we don't really have any empirical data to draw upon as to what its actual performance will be. For all we know it might turn out to be the next F-22 or Sgt. York. Thus it fails in the sense that using it for anything here is about the equivalent of using the Su-47.

So in other words, its a fail because it hasn't been in use yet so we don't know what it will do?

No, the full wording is: "Its a fail because it hasn't been in use yet so we don't know what it will do, however from the indications we do have things are not looking good."

[NewLakotah]

So in other words, its a fail because it hasn't been in use yet so we don't know what it will do?

No, the full wording is: "Its a fail because it hasn't been in use yet so we don't know what it will do, however from the indications we do have things are not looking good."

Outside of the delays in production, I have yet to see too much that makes me question its ability to perform in its designed capacity which is the replacement of the F-16 and the support role to the F-22 Air Superiority Fighter.

[Purpelia]

No, the full wording is: "Its a fail because it hasn't been in use yet so we don't know what it will do, however from the indications we do have things are not looking good."

Outside of the delays in production, I have yet to see too much that makes me question its ability to perform in its designed capacity which is the replacement of the F-16 and the support role to the F-22 Air Superiority Fighter.

Ignoring for a moment the tangent that the there won't be a F-22 to support, which would be actually relevant to the original person who asked for advice since he needs an aircraft that does both... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35#Conce ... and_safety

[NewLakotah]

Outside of the delays in production, I have yet to see too much that makes me question its ability to perform in its designed capacity which is the replacement of the F-16 and the support role to the F-22 Air Superiority Fighter.

Ignoring for a moment the tangent that the there won't be a F-22 to support, which would be actually relevant to the original person who asked for advice since he needs an aircraft that does both... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35#Conce ... and_safety

Most of the issues with the F-35 are with the development of the aircraft not the performance. Obviously it has only a little flight experience and no combat experience, but most issues are able to be sort out during the development of the F-35.

[Purpelia]

Ignoring for a moment the tangent that the there won't be a F-22 to support, which would be actually relevant to the original person who asked for advice since he needs an aircraft that does both... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35#Conce ... and_safety

Most of the issues with the F-35 are with the development of the aircraft not the performance. Obviously it has only a little flight experience and no combat experience, but most issues are able to be sort out during the development of the F-35.

They are however the reason why said development has taken that long and why it can't be rushed.

[NewLakotah]

Most of the issues with the F-35 are with the development of the aircraft not the performance. Obviously it has only a little flight experience and no combat experience, but most issues are able to be sort out during the development of the F-35.

They are however the reason why said development has taken that long and why it can't be rushed.

It is never wise to rush development in the first place. Also, development has long and slow and quite full of complete fails, but much of this has little to do with the actual aircraft itself but with the government and its assorted issues during the development.

[Purpelia]

They are however the reason why said development has taken that long and why it can't be rushed.

It is never wise to rush development in the first place. Also, development has long and slow and quite full of complete fails, but much of this has little to do with the actual aircraft itself but with the government and its assorted issues during the development.

Or just with the fact that when you try and make something that is many things in one package AND want to be revolutionary advanced in both you end up taking a lot more time than is apparent at the beginning and end up with an inferior product. See F-22. Or hell, if you prefer a non american example see the Me-262 and what happened when they wanted to make it a fighter bomber.

[NewLakotah]

It is never wise to rush development in the first place. Also, development has long and slow and quite full of complete fails, but much of this has little to do with the actual aircraft itself but with the government and its assorted issues during the development.

Or just with the fact that when you try and make something that is many things in one package AND want to be revolutionary advanced in both you end up taking a lot more time than is apparent at the beginning and end up with an inferior product. See F-22. Or hell, if you prefer a non american example see the Me-262 and what happened when they wanted to make it a fighter bomber.

I fail to see how the F-22 is a inferior product. Currently, it is the best fighter aircraft in current use today. And the F-35 isn't trying to be too many things at once, thats why they are making 3 separate types that are basically a new jet. That for sure adds to the production time. Also, the Me-262 isn't the same thing because they sprinted that into production straight from the drawing board and it obviously had major teething issues that could never be solved due to the war and budget constraints.

[Purpelia]

I fail to see how the F-22 is a inferior product.

Yea, we are done here in that case.

Currently, it is the best fighter aircraft in current use today.

How about instead: "its a production and maintenance nightmare that the american air force has finally decided to terminate"? Or did you miss that memo?

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22#Produ ... ermination

And the F-35 isn't trying to be too many things at once, thats why they are making 3 separate types that are basically a new jet.

Three jets with a huge commonality of parts to the point of being one jet in three radically modified variants. And that causes issues.

That for sure adds to the production time. Also, the Me-262 isn't the same thing because they sprinted that into production straight from the drawing board and it obviously had major teething issues that could never be solved due to the war and budget constraints.

And it's the same kind of constraints we see here. You just can't make stuff that's 10 years or more ahead of the time and expect them to work properly. That's why the Panther failed. It's why the MGM-51 was a bust and why the MBT-70 newer materialized.

[Spirit of Hope]

How about instead: "its a production and maintenance nightmare that the american air force has finally decided to terminate"? Or did you miss that memo?

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22#Produ ... ermination

That literally just means "we didn't need any more because they were better than anything we might face." Doesn't mean the plane is bad, just means that they don't want or need to buy any more, not that the plane was bad.

[NewLakotah]

I fail to see how the F-22 is a inferior product.

Yea, we are done here in that case.

Currently, it is the best fighter aircraft in current use today.

How about instead: "its a production and maintenance nightmare that the american air force has finally decided to terminate"? Or did you miss that memo?

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22#Produ ... ermination

And the F-35 isn't trying to be too many things at once, thats why they are making 3 separate types that are basically a new jet.

Three jets with a huge commonality of parts to the point of being one jet in three radically modified variants. And that causes issues.

That for sure adds to the production time. Also, the Me-262 isn't the same thing because they sprinted that into production straight from the drawing board and it obviously had major teething issues that could never be solved due to the war and budget constraints.

And it's the same kind of constraints we see here. You just can't make stuff that's 10 years or more ahead of the time and expect them to work properly. That's why the Panther failed. It's why the MGM-51 was a bust and why the MBT-70 newer materialized.

Can you please explain how the F-22 is inferior? From its simulated combat against all comparable aircraft it has always come back the victor will little to no loss. And the USAF isn't terminating the F-22 only the production of the F-22 meaning no more aircraft are going to be produced. And yes, it cost literally a fortune to maintain, which seems to be a common for the US (M1 Abrams for example), which is why production was halted. Plus, if you actually read the article you would see that it is considered to still be the most advanced fighter currently in use.

About the F-35, well, I can't really go into detail since its not actually in use so therefore any debate on the issue is moot. However, yes it is the same aircraft in 3 models which means that it will take time to produce. And actually, since it is supposed to go into service in 2015, it is actually the same time scale of the F-22 from its first fight to adoption. And around the same time for the proposed adoption for the Sukhoi PAK FA.

[Purpelia]

Can you please explain how the F-22 is inferior? From its simulated combat against all comparable aircraft it has always come back the victor will little to no loss. And the USAF isn't terminating the F-22 only the production of the F-22 meaning no more aircraft are going to be produced. And yes, it cost literally a fortune to maintain, which seems to be a common for the US (M1 Abrams for example), which is why production was halted. Plus, if you actually read the article you would see that it is considered to still be the most advanced fighter currently in use.

Because on paper performance and even actual combat performance are utterly meaningless unless the rest of the package is up to the same standard. And in this case it simply is not. We are not only talking about money here but operational availability. If your aircraft is 10 times better than what the enemy has but needs 10 times the service time and cost per flight hour than you have gained nothing.

Seriously, I mean no offense or anything but this is the kind of stat wanking that I would expect from a WW2 German fanboy claiming that the Tiger II was the best tank ever. More advanced is just a buzzword used when people want to claim something is better by default due to being more high tech.

About the F-35, well, I can't really go into detail since its not actually in use so therefore any debate on the issue is moot. However, yes it is the same aircraft in 3 models which means that it will take time to produce. And actually, since it is supposed to go into service in 2015, it is actually the same time scale of the F-22 from its first fight to adoption. And around the same time for the proposed adoption for the Sukhoi PAK FA.

Assuming either of the two are going to match their deadlines. I honestly have no reason to believe in either.

[NewLakotah]

Can you please explain how the F-22 is inferior? From its simulated combat against all comparable aircraft it has always come back the victor will little to no loss. And the USAF isn't terminating the F-22 only the production of the F-22 meaning no more aircraft are going to be produced. And yes, it cost literally a fortune to maintain, which seems to be a common for the US (M1 Abrams for example), which is why production was halted. Plus, if you actually read the article you would see that it is considered to still be the most advanced fighter currently in use.

Because on paper performance and even actual combat performance are utterly meaningless unless the rest of the package is up to the same standard. And in this case it simply is not. We are not only talking about money here but operational availability. If your aircraft is 10 times better than what the enemy has but needs 10 times the service time and cost per flight hour than you have gained nothing.

Seriously, I mean no offense or anything but this is the kind of stat wanking that I would expect from a WW2 German fanboy claiming that the Tiger II was the best tank ever. More advanced is just a buzzword used when people want to claim something is better by default due to being more high tech.

About the F-35, well, I can't really go into detail since its not actually in use so therefore any debate on the issue is moot. However, yes it is the same aircraft in 3 models which means that it will take time to produce. And actually, since it is supposed to go into service in 2015, it is actually the same time scale of the F-22 from its first fight to adoption. And around the same time for the proposed adoption for the Sukhoi PAK FA.

Assuming either of the two are going to match their deadlines. I honestly have no reason to believe in either.

You still haven't answered my question really though. If the F-22 is "inferior" what is it inferior too?

[The Akasha Colony]

Can you please explain how the F-22 is inferior? From its simulated combat against all comparable aircraft it has always come back the victor will little to no loss. And the USAF isn't terminating the F-22 only the production of the F-22 meaning no more aircraft are going to be produced. And yes, it cost literally a fortune to maintain, which seems to be a common for the US (M1 Abrams for example), which is why production was halted. Plus, if you actually read the article you would see that it is considered to still be the most advanced fighter currently in use.

Because on paper performance and even actual combat performance are utterly meaningless unless the rest of the package is up to the same standard. And in this case it simply is not. We are not only talking about money here but operational availability. If your aircraft is 10 times better than what the enemy has but needs 10 times the service time and cost per flight hour than you have gained nothing.

Seriously, I mean no offense or anything but this is the kind of stat wanking that I would expect from a WW2 German fanboy claiming that the Tiger II was the best tank ever. More advanced is just a buzzword used when people want to claim something is better by default due to being more high tech.

About the F-35, well, I can't really go into detail since its not actually in use so therefore any debate on the issue is moot. However, yes it is the same aircraft in 3 models which means that it will take time to produce. And actually, since it is supposed to go into service in 2015, it is actually the same time scale of the F-22 from its first fight to adoption. And around the same time for the proposed adoption for the Sukhoi PAK FA.

Assuming either of the two are going to match their deadlines. I honestly have no reason to believe in either.

Purp, I know you've been in this thread long enough to see those claims and rumors about the F-22 debunked repeatedly.

[Purpelia]

You still haven't answered my question really though. If the F-22 is "inferior" what is it inferior too?

And we are back to stat wanking. As I said before, it's not about comparing stats but about comparing actual expected performance. It does not need to be inferior stat vise to anything to be inferior operationally.

You can have the most superior of all tanks of WW2, the Tiger II with its nigh impenetrable armor and huge gun and on paper quite decent speed and mobility and can still suck operationally. Like for example if the resulting vehicle costs so much you can only field a handful and have to rely on older ones to fill up the gaps. Sound familiar?

Purp, I know you've been in this thread long enough to see those claims and rumors about the F-22 debunked repeatedly.

The only thing I have seen is the two aircraft being showered with the same adoration fanboys shower the Panther and Tiger II with. Bottom line is that they aren't horrible aircraft. But they just aren't miracle weapons. And when it comes to choosing an aircraft to fit their roles I'd rather take a Rafale or some other tried and tested one than a F-35 that is yet to fly operationally.