RyboPops

This thread is a goldmine. I love finding new music to be entertained by.

I've been wondering for some time...who takes the screenshots used in the news updates? They're all gorgeous screenshots, but the MiG-29 shot is a work of art.

More information about your PC build (mobo, chipset, PSU, etc) would also be helpful. With stock clock speeds what kind of under-load temps do you see on the GPU?

Which 960 do you have? I have the ASUS Strix GTX 960...I can't remember my OC off the top of my head but I'll try to post it when I get home.

I read an article that said the issue was at the beginning of the cat stroke, not the end. It also said that two pilots have been injured by it. So while the media may be sensationalizing it, it is a real issue. That said, it only occurs with a very lightly loaded airplane, and the they don't shoot light airplanes very often outside of CQs.

The video posted earlier says there were 7 F-35 losses, all WVR...

That isn't so simple with the new F-35C nose gear issue, especially if it requires a redesign or some sort of mechanical adjustment. A redesign is pretty unlikely but if that was the road traveled, it would be lots of time, lots of testing, and inherently lots more money. Mechanical adjustments (your guess is as good as mine as to what that even means) would take much less time, require less testing, and more money, but not nearly as much as a redesign. What's a few extra million anyway? :music_whistling:

AFAIK, all of the current F-35 guys came from other jets. There hasn't been an F-35 class yet that came straight to the B Course from UPT/SUPT/ENJJPT as the Luke F-35 RTU course was just finalized in November or December of last year. So from the pilot standpoint they should all be fairly well versed in BFM and ACM. Those are arguably the most perishable skills in tactical aviation (aside from maybe trapping at the boat in the USN) so it makes sense that they would continue to practice using the stores simulations, especially during Red Flag.

From your Wikipedia link: "An argument from authority...is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert." I directly stated multiple times that I am not on the F-35 program. I never claimed to have expertise, nor did I claim to be any sort of expert. I refute that I ever made any attempt at an argument from authority. If you still think I did, we'll have to agree to disagree on this particular subject. You're right, stating my background was probably unnecessary, but it certainly wasn't an attempt to brag. My apologies if it seemed that was the case. I have edited my previous post to hopefully eliminate any appearances of a "better-than-thou" attitude, if that's what was perceived. I left that I'm an LM employee because I feel it relevant to my post about reading LM test pilot reports. As already stated multiple times (beating a very dead horse here) I'm not on the F-35 program, I just enjoy reading the reports. The reports I have access to on the LM unclass intranet are for any LM employee in any LOB to view. The docs I read have no portion markings whatsoever (not even so much as a FOUO or a distribution statement). There are no OPSEC concerns at all and I would never jeopardize national security or risk my career over a forum post. I think most of the reports have already been published anyway and I'm fairly confident that most people would be able to obtain the unpublished reports under the FOIA. You don't even need media/press credentials anymore...pretty much any Joe Schmoe blogger with half of a follower can get desired info. :doh: It's a failed concept IMHO and overdue for a repeal, but that's a whooooole different can of worms for another thread. Wow, that was horrible grammar on my part. What I mean is that I define a fighter to be an aircraft that can successfully dispatch nearly any foe in an offensive, defensive, or neutral 1v1 WVR fight. The F-15C and F-22 are good examples of this. That isn't to say they are unbeatable by any means, but they are "thoroughbred" fighters. The F-35 is not among their ranks as it is a multi-role platform with heavy emphasis on the ability to strike in contested, high-threat airspace and less emphasis on its WVR capabilities. I can't imagine that there are many people that honestly believe that the F-35, a single airplane type, can take over every mission the USAF/USMC/USN flies anyway. Hopefully that clears up what I was trying to convey. I'll agree with your statement. I was hasty to claim that it's a poor fighter based solely on the 7 WVR losses, although my opinion remains unchanged based on the information I have seen and read over the course of a few years. I will, however, say that the LM test pilot reports I have read generally had an increasingly positive outlook on the airplane over time and I'm hopeful that in the end we will all feel that the price tag is worth the end result. Whew...I think that was my longest ever post on the internet. I need a beer, or better yet, a glass of whisky. Cheers!

I'll try to post responses later when I'm at a PC. Posting my from phone is a PITA and it takes like an hour to quote, type, etc. EDIT- you edited while I typed, so I edited too. Cheers bro, we're all on the same team at the of the day.

I make no claim to authority, I merely stated my background and what I have access to. I specifically stated that I'm not working the F-35 program. Hell, I'm not even in the LM Aero LOB. If you or anyone else chooses to disbelieve my claim I certainly wouldn't lay blame...it's the internet after all. Would you like a picture of my LM employee badge as irrefutable evidence? I'll snap a picture of it tonight when I get home with a sticky note that says "RyboPops" on it while holding it in front of this very post displayed on my monitor. :thumbup: I also didn't make a false argument, read it again: I made reasonable and logical conclusions using pilot reports that are, for the most part, publicly available and the information shared in the video that it lost 7 WVR fights. I'll again state that I'm not an F-35 hater, and perhaps using the words "poor fighter" is what is causing people think that. In terms of fighters, I think of the WVR arena exclusively as being able to find, sort, and engage targets at BVR ranges doesn't make a fighter IMO. A B-52 with appropriate systems could fire AIM-120's. So I stand by my conclusion that based on available evidence and testimony, the F-35 is a poor performer in the WVR fight. I'm sure, however, that it is going to be great in most other roles (strike, IA, XINT, XATK, and basically any other A-G role except CAS) Weapons can be simulated quite easily. The F-16 has been doing it for years. You can pseudo-load weapons into the SMS system and the associated functionality (minus firing, obviously) is present in the jet. Symbology on the HUD is identical, DLZs and release parameters are simulated, etc.

I was mostly thinking of the F-15E and the F-18E/F in terms of payload capacity in the strike role, both of which are arguably the best strike platforms of their respective branches. The Rhino is the best by default in the USN since they don't currently have any other platforms to begin with and won't for what appears to be a long time. The F-35 is limited in that regard without external stores, which would of course negate it's stealth characteristics. That said, if the US were to get in a war with a 5th gen adversary, the first things into theater would likely be Raptors, Lightnings, and Spirits. Once air superiority is obtained and the deadliest threats are eliminated the remainder of the aircraft need not be stealth and Vipers, Eagles, Mudhens, Hogs, Hornets, Rhinos, Bones, and Buffs could finish the attrition campaign with support from Growlers doing their EW voodoo.

You're right, I should have specified what I was referring to. I have included more detailed information in my subsequent posts.

Nose-on authority doesn't provide more options, it's just a different way of fighting. The F-16 is a rate fighter, the Hornet is a radius fighter, and the F-35, based on limited information, appears to be somewhere in the middle. As I mentioned above, maneuverability isn't the issue, visibility outside the airplane is.

First, I'll offer my background. I've been an LM employee since 2013. Do I work on the F-35 program? Nope. Do I have access to lots of LM internal F-35 info? Yep. generally speaking, if it isn't portion marked or NTK, I'm able to read it. That includes many LM test pilot reports since the first flight including the report from which the now infamous quote "aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time" originates. Unless I'm mistaken (I'm not), the cockpit hasn't been redesigned, meaning the LM test pilot report still holds true. Now we have real world evidence that supports that contextual background; The F-35 got into 7 WVR engagements, and it lost all 7. Of course there is still some missing information but we have enough information to make logical and reasonable assessments. What we don't have context for is the nature of the engagements that they won. They were obviously BVR engagements, but what was the setup? What aircraft did the F-35's sort and engage? What were the Blue Air ROE and what were the Red Air ROE? What was the F-35's A-Pole/F-Pole at the time of engagement? What was the anticipated Pk rate and was it achieved? That's the lack of context to which I'm referring. These videos and articles discussing F-35 combat achievements are useless without the necessary background information, and therefore only serve to sway public opinion. I'm not arguing that the F-35 will suck at everything it does. On the contrary, it's going to be a good contested airspace strike platform aside from payload size. Hell, it will probably even take the Wild Weasel role from the Viper and it will likely excel in that role. So if you assumed that I'm simply another F-35 hater you are most certainly incorrect.

I would hardly call it unequivocal, more propaganda-like for PR purposes IMO. The kill ratio means nothing out of context. The only number that really means anything are the 7 WVR losses, as it verifies what test pilot reports have been saying for years: The F-35 is a poor fighter. Is it a good striker? Absolutely, stealth ensures that it can get places other jets can't. Is it a good BVR platform? Sure, AESA radar paired with AIM-120Ds is a kick-ass combo. But I'm so sick of all these little videos and news articles trying to sell the F-35 to the public with their "SEEEEE!?!? We told you it would eventually be worth the insane cost overruns and schedule slip" feel good stories with little, if any, contextual background provided.

But was he hinting at a twin bomber or a twin fighter?? :joystick:

I'm getting testy...

F-18XT is what they're calling it, not XL. Although XL invokes this mental image of a Super Hornet the size of a 737 which could be cool, I guess.

Congrats dude, if you go C-5 maybe we'll meet someday. I'm a civilian DOD guy and I've worked with a few C-5 crews moving things from Buckley to CCAFS or Vandenberg.

Found this really nice A-10 footage on YouTube from Hawgsmoke 2016. No clue how to use these damned YouTube tags so here's a link instead.

I LOLed hard at this. At work. With my office door open. :megalol:

Not necessarily, it can be dependent on the load you're putting on it. Try other games/sims and see if you hear it there too.

Is my sarcasm detector not working?

And here I was thinking there was some sort of massive contentious fracture in the community.