/k/ - Weapons

if you hit the enemy plane you're both going down, why spend the extra money on sharp wings?

try watching outlaw star if you want to be red pilled on aerial hand to hand combat

>>325927

you aren't seeing what I'm seeing anon

BLADE PLANES!

surely there is some way to strengthen planes to the point where they can shear other planes in two?

>>325929

Not without some science fiction tier advancements in material science. Materials strong and light enough to do this just don't exist, not by a long shot.

Not to mention the fact that if they ever do exist, your enemy is going to be making planes out of them too.

>>325929

It would be more beneficial to just create aerial hammers.

The pilots would only have one shot at smashing the other plane due to the massive amounts of fuel to move something so impenetrable through the air

You won't be able to get close enough.

Do you know what they call it when you make a flying device that can get close enough to a plane that it causes damage?

a missile

>>325957

>shinshin

>literally the onomatopoeia of an unseating katana

Btw for the mind blowing advancements nips are claiming it will have it looks hella like a barely stealth F-5 with double verticals literally Iran-tier aerodynamic research.

>>325923

Not only are there material and structural issues with actually hitting a wing on something else, given how important wings are to staying in the air; there are also issues with flight dynamics since a sharp leading edge is bad practice for fluid flow over the wing. The vast majority of aerofoils that are used in industry have round leading edges for a reason and the few special snowflakes that aren't rounded on the leading edge are typically for very specialized purposes like drones or props, if even that.

tl;dr good luck flying a sharp leading edge wing without major pains in the ass

t. first year aerospace engineer

>>325951

God dam was that plane ahead of its time. Imagine a modernized stealthed variant with some FIM-92s attached to a streamlined pod…

>>325960

>a missile

That's not a bad idea, a missile with a big Katana on the tip or even a missile that stabilizes before reaching the target, unzips a Katana on top and proceeds to cut the enemy in half. I can see that being perfectly viable. Good idea.

>>325957

>Japan keeps wasting time with planes

>Not working 24/7 on developing giant mechs

>>326075

The biggest problem was that the pilots head got tired easily because his neck is in an unnatural shape for looking forward.

>>326101

That's called a bar or rod warhead.

>>326101

Most missiles don't actually collide with their target. They instead explode behind them and the blast catches up and does the damage.

>>326199

I used to hunt jets with ground-based missile launchers in Battlefield: Desert Combat. People would whine so hard when I killed them, because the missile was basically a flying shrapnel shotgun, not a jet-propelled bomb.

>>325923

>not wanting a fucking railgun mounted at the front that literally blows up your whole jet into a fucking comet

>>325953

Thread over, everyone go home.

>>325970

>Btw for the mind blowing advancements nips are claiming it will have it looks hella like a barely stealth F-5 with double verticals literally Iran-tier aerodynamic research.

what did you expect, they always were 40 years before niggers when it comes to military stuff

>>326302

Not so true. F-2 implemented the first operational AESA, which is becoming staple leading edge tech today, in existence nearly a decade before the US but of course it was defective and completely sucked compared to its contemporary PESAs.

>>325923

Anything's possible with enough R&D, but I doubt it'll ever happen because it's not really viable financially on a cost-to-benefit scale.

>>325953

have the katanas always been on that gif?

This was my only reason to even open this thread.