DoD Directive 3000 would have to go away first or you still need pilots in near proximity to provide human guidance. UCAV doctrine is still evolving since we aint really got any yet. The only UCAV engagement with manned aircraft was not exactly illustrative. :)

The A-10 is really intended to kill tanks with Mavericks. Using the GAU-8 is kinda a desperation move on the part of the US because if you can reach out and touch a T-80 a ZSU can reach out and touch you back. The idea is you could take 4-5 A-10s and demolish a soviet tank battalion with guns.

There’s a bit of lag there as the door opens before the first round is fired. I guess it doesn’t matter if you pull the trigger and the gun doesn’t actually fire until the computer decides it will hit the target.

Mmm...1992 a Peruvian fighter shot up a US C-130. In 1999 a Ethiopian Su-27 killed an Eritrean Mig-29 with guns.

Below the cut line in critical functionality for IOC delivery. Sure, it’s probably just a couple man months of effort to code and a few more to test but it’s months they didn’t want to spend. Remember the A model follows the B model and the B model doesn’t have a gun. While I’m sure the Marines would like a gun at IOC…

This is a repost since it got completely buried in the earlier F-35 thread...but I’m curious how Tyler would rebut it (Note: this is significantly plagerized):

Synopsis (aka TL;DR)

And if you look at that study you realize the authors excluded the F-4 and the A7 and then calculated the O&S cost growth based on three times the F-22 costs which will be much cheaper than that of a 5th gen land based fighter + 5th gen carrier fighter + 5th gen STOVL fighter.

Sure. But not many hours in a f-35.

I cannot stress enough how inconsequential the F-35 vs F-16 BFM report was without knowing the exact limitations for the BFM engagements.

I cannot stress enough how inconsequential the F-35 vs F-16 BFM report was without knowing the exact limitations for the BFM engagements.

Wanna bet that many of the F-35 detractors were screaming Craptor at the top of their lungs just a few years ago and now it’s all “they should have bought more F-22s”

“I agree that the F35 program is something that god willing will never be repeated again”

Australia did not cancel its F-35 order. It decided that buying a few F-35Bs instead of F-35As wasn’t worth it because it would cost too much to upgrade their ships to carry them.

My impression has been that most F-16 pilots would prefer going WVR against a Su-27 in a F-35 than doing SEAD/DEAD against double digit SAMs in a F-16 even if the thing only ends up flying as well as a F-18.

I posted this in the other thread but where are the “far superior numbers”?

Quit whining and double dip. YOU can be one of those pampered contractors making six figures in Nevada and double that in Bahrain.

“My problem with the F-35 is that it was sold, internationally atleast (which is relevant for me as an Australian) as a true replacement for the F/A-18 and F-16 when in actual fact in many areas it won’t perform aswell, while that is not so much as a problem for the USAF with their F-22 it is for us and they way in…

“Now, the big problem is that improved versions of Su-27 are more or less equal to F-35 in dogfighting. That is if we count only guns. It gets much worse with missiles - R-73 and helmet thingy were some of the best in Russian tech. In the 90s helmet visor was quickly copied by the West, that shows a lot. I’d dare to…

“There is nothing he f-35 can do in cas that a strike eagle can not of which we have 200 that will be in inventory till 2040.”