[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / games / had / imouto / pdfs / rule34 / rzabczan / s / wai ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
Comment *
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

There's no discharge in the war!

File: a5f9f870395fd9c⋯.jpg (310.55 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, original_01_F_35_JSF_g.jpg)

bbe25d No.512055

There's a boatload of propaganda on the Internet (AusAirPower, WarIsBoring, Pierre Sprey) about how the F-35 completely sucks:

* shit stealth, especially underside (bulges ruin flat profile)

* shit top speed (self-explanatory)

* shit maneuverability (loses angles even to an F-16)

* shit software (the same target renders multiple times when it's shared with friendlies)

If you ask me, the F-35 only exists so that the US can commercialize their fancy "5th gen" tech without selling the F-22 Raptor itself. But if the above list is actually true then the JSF is a failed project that no country should spend money on.

So what do you think about the F-35? Will its J-31 doppelganger eat it for breakfast?

6b5e52 No.512056


>believes disinfo campaign on the most advanced weapon system ever designed by the world's most powerful empire

anonkun plz

and if it does suck it's probably because all the money got funneled into some black project that will be rolled out only if SHTF w/ Russia/China. Say what you want about US military but Aerospace tech in US is still number one and that isn't changing soon.

cceb85 No.512057

File: ed83ceba7bb1600⋯.png (490.09 KB, 449x401, 449:401, ed83ceba7bb16006f24254ff03….png)


>muh red white and blue

fa911b No.512062


The real problems with the F-35 is A) just the sheer cost to run the damn thing and B) it is not the aircraft the Chair Force actually needs, especially Europoor nations.

The F-35 is instantly butchered in one key aspect and that is CAS, Europoor nations in particular need a good CAS aircraft but most nations even the US have been neglecting this essential role. Next up is the need for a proper high speed interceptor. The US is actually covered in this aspect with the F-22 but again Europoor nations are being retarded and neglecting this key aspect even though of all NATO nations they are the ones who need good interceptors the most. What's the point in having something to intercept Russian Bombers when by the time the aircraft has taken off, obtained altitude and speed the Russians have fucked off, gone home and having their evening Vodka?

tl;dr version: It's too expensive for what it is and not really what anyone actually needs.


>Aerospace tech in US is still number one

How are your missiles?

eb7e70 No.512065


>most advanced weapon system ever designed by the world's most powerful empire

Holy crap what a loaded sentence, 10/10 bait.

ac0920 No.512069


>What NATO airforces actually need





Even before we get into specific problems with the F35 as a multirole aircraft it won't rate higher than 'it's … pretty much OK' at any one specific job. Especially when you consider that for those four jobs specifically the designs that would do well for one make it shit for at least one of the others.

Actually, I might not be entirely fair there. It's a light bomber, clearly designed as such. So it might be 'good enough' for CAS and SEAD, but expecting it to handle interceptor missions is insane, and the modifications they've made to this light bomber in order to try to get it to intercept shit make it a low end light bomber. That wouldn't be enough to make kill the project completely, but as they're selling it at a vastly overinflated price and marketing it as the 'do everything' aircraft of the future (which it clearly isn't) it can only be a disappointment at best - with the importance of air power in modern symmetric war between nations it's the sort of thing that has the potential to lose wars all by itself.

Looking particularly at what we know about the F35 design though

>Engines are too big, too hot, and too heavy.

What are IR missiles?

>$50'000 cost per hour of flight.

I know you Burgers have a huge military budget, but there must be better ways to use it.

>It uses its fuel to cool the electronics

In anything other than a temperate climate there's all kinds of problems that could cause - at best it just won't start if the weather gets too warm, it could go as far as completely frying the electronics under the worst case scenario.

>It's use of a 'centralised logistics system' means it needs an internet connection to operate properly.

Who thought this was a good idea? Which engineer let his thirteen year old nephew write the design spec?

I hope the J-31 is a direct, 1:1, copy of the F35 with no alterations or improvements. That way at least the Chinese airforce will be just as fucked as every F35 using airforce when SHTF.

179008 No.512071


The F-35 isn't all that bad actually. It has some cool features.

The issue is we've literally spent more on this fucking thing than we ever did on NASA or the Apollo program.

eb7e70 No.512074


Performance specs are rougly equivalent to F4 Phantom.

The only improvement is DAS and stealth.

The stealth is useless because SAM and fighters are mounting infrared detectors with 90km range.

And DAS is fifteen times the cost because every aperture needs to be stealth, and more apertures need to be used. Gripen has DAS as well for far less cost.

ac0920 No.512075


Considering the cost there's no excuse for anything short of perfection though. If you spent a few million on buying your dream car would you accept it stalling out every few times you start it, needing to spend almost as much time with the mechanics as on the road, and suffering complete failure of the electronics in certain conditions?

a8215b No.512092


It hardly even has stealth. At its best angle it has a larger RCS than the F-117 had (0.001-0.003 versus ~0.005, and that's the claim they made while they were trying to sell the thing). The 117 could be shot down by a Serbo-Hungarian with a 60s-era SAM system, so what is the F-35 vulnerable to?

9aa9f3 No.512093

File: c7c5f803b6a8a2c⋯.png (97.59 KB, 612x491, 612:491, c7c.png)


Jet shit confuses me

Why do we have the f35 when there's the f22?

And why are older F-jets bad? A f14 really is obsolete?

ac0920 No.512096

File: fd7627dee0df960⋯.gif (3.97 MB, 800x600, 4:3, Make it rain.gif)


>Why do we have the f35 when there's the f22?

>Meanwhile at Lockheed Martin

6e3f8f No.512097


The shit you are saying is what is the issue. We have the 22 but that was expensive and apparently the tooling for it is inna desert which is why you see 22s with riveted on metal plates for nigger rig repairs that ruin its stealth capability. Older jets can and will out perform the 35 (as if they don't already) if given the planned electronics upgrade or an updated model were made such as the super tom cat that got shitcanned. Basically an arm chair general these days can make better procurement decisions than a real one because the arm chair general is playing a game to get the theoretically best military while the real general is playing to someone's tune to get more sheckles

cceb85 No.512098


>Why do we have the f35 when there's the f22?

The F22 was supposed to be the dedicated top of the line air superiority fighter, and the F35 was supposed to replace everything else in US service. Then some knobgobbler managed to convince congress that we only needed the F35, and cancelled the F22 order and destroyed the tooling.

>And why are older F-jets bad?

They're outdated, and against a peer or near-peer enemy they'll be a liability. Of course not having any working jets because procurement is fucking stupidly jewed is also a liability.

>A f14 really is obsolete?

The F14 was designed to do one thing, and that was carry the Phoenix. In a modern fleet combat scenario that is obsolete, yes. Plus the engines and the swing-wing mechanism were maintenance hogs. So of course the most logical thing to do is not buy off the shelf naval fighters but instead replace them all with unproven STOVL aircraft that require tons more maintenance and don't really work well.

The fucking Saudis are getting armed with F15's that are better than anything we actually have enough of to survive past the first 15 minutes of a shooting war. Procurement is fucked, and it's never going to be unfucked until the entire rotten system comes crashing down.

7ed02d No.512099

We can't export the f22s because Israel has been caught selling our technology to china many times.

7ed02d No.512100

File: 01a68df22fbb99b⋯.jpg (161.98 KB, 1024x686, 512:343, F-16_Block_70v2.jpg)

File: 58047e0b7ded23f⋯.jpg (85.56 KB, 550x433, 550:433, loadout_f-16_scamp.jpg)

We should have done something like my pictures, or have the f22 for general aviation,F22 Sea Raptor for naval operation, and a FB 22 as a bomb truck.

We should phase out the b1,b2,and b52 for one model. We should keep examples of all jets in working condition for air shows.

We still have working f-117s.

cceb85 No.512101


>We can't sell our greatest ally our best tech because they'll turn around and let the dirty chicoms have access

>So we'll replace it with something so shitty even the kikes refuse to touch it

That is so retarded I could honestly believe it came out of the Pentagon.

4adbcf No.512103


Dont be retarded, pentagon would make super system then give it for free to israel to please its masters

6e2196 No.512108


The Navy retired the F-14 for the F-18 already. I'd be curious to see how the F-35 compared, but I imagine it'd be disappointing. It's too focused on doing all the jobs when that's not what is needed.

6d9340 No.512117




Problem with the F-22 is that it costs around 3x more to operate than a 30 year old F-15 that is falling apart and needing complete repairs on everything. That is far too expensive if you want to replace your airfleet which the US Chairforce is in desperate need of doing since literally everything the US has got is on average 30 years old and falling apart. If you are unsure why they need to replace old aircraft it's because once aircraft get to a certain age you're no longer performing regular maintenance or replacements of part, you're talking about replacing the airframe at which point you would be better off buying a whole new aircraft due to the costs involved.

The F-35 was supposed to be the replacement for your F-16 fleet for this reason. While expensive per unit the F-35 was meant to be actually rather cheap to run, instead it is about the same as an F-22 to operate which is far too expensive especially considering about every 10 years you're looking about a 30-50% increase in operational costs per aircraft keeping it flying and airworthy.

The F-35 I am amazed is still allowed to continue as a project as it is a shitshow beyond anyone's imagination. Not even the US Chair Force can afford it which should be all the red flags you need to know about the project since adopting this aircraft would indeed bankrupt the US armed forces entirely. Replacing the F-15, F-16 and F-18 fleet with F-35's would be economic suicide to the US since it is already more expensive to operate than aircraft that are falling apart. If the US does keep pushing the F-35 what probably might happen is a collossal reduction of aircraft in the USAF inventory, probably going from about 1,000 F-16's, F-18s and F-15's to about 300 F-35's.


The US should have done what everyone else did which was go for Gen 4.5 aircraft and not get bogged down with Gen 5 aircraft then fuck everyone over with said Gen 5 aircraft Block III F-18's and F-15SE for example would be very capable of aircraft at a fraction of the operational costs. Instead they gave all their shekels to Lockheeb Martin not once, but twice who must be rubbing their hand gleefully.


It's too focused on doing jobs that aren't in real terms very practical.

3583fe No.512176



why would you destroy the tooling of a multi-billion dollar operation?

cceb85 No.512185


Because while the F22 budget was bloated, the F35 is like a slot machine that always lands on triples.

3583fe No.512188


I've been reading up on this f35/f22 issue, and it's kind of amazing how our government can spend such an astonishing amount of money and not even have a functional jet, and have only a handful of f22's, whereas a few decades ago we could procure good, reliable aircraft.

what the shit happened?

4beb67 No.512195

File: 4ca71c9a7727b7b⋯.png (11.2 KB, 640x109, 640:109, lockheeb.png)



>why would you destroy the tooling of a multi-billion dollar operation?

>what the shit happened?

pic related

7ed02d No.512206


What would happen if we forced jewheeb to pay back every last dime that we've spent on the f35 program,and use that money on boeing gen 4.5 aircraft?

Why are we spending all of this money on fighters when we need to replace the b52,b1,and b2s?

0f05b4 No.512207

It couldn't even beat a MIG 21 in a dogfight, we've already had threads about this. American airpower has been completely neutered

cceb85 No.512208


Because bombtrucks aren't sexy, and flying cool planes is more important that operational effectiveness.

7ed02d No.512211


It's as if the Noe-cons have deliberately and systematically destroyed the military.

ababdb No.512216


In case you didn't know, the F-35 never lost to F-16s in a fair fight. It was a test of the control laws that govern when the plane should assume control during high-AoA maneuvers. They weren't tuned correctly resulting in bad performance during the test.

ac0920 No.512231

File: 0d2e3acff148db1⋯.png (49.54 KB, 958x505, 958:505, Muh Yurofeyetah.png)


True, maybe we should be looking at this another way though. Instead of shitting on the F35 and gazing in wonder at the most spectacular waste of money since the Swiss Navy. Instead, maybe, we should be congratulating the USA and Lockheed-Martin on somehow managing to build something to build something that makes the Eurofighter look good.

4080d7 No.512241


> so what is the F-35 vulnerable to?

A cache of Wasserfall SAMs rotting in a cave somewhere?

840797 No.512256


I have to call bullshit on that, unless of course you can point me to some proof showing that the F-35 "properly configured" truly does out-turn an F-16.

6df40f No.512260


>1st reply

Lockheeb please…

eb7e70 No.512267


They've already moved the money into a thousand hidden accounts all over the world, you'll never get it back.


> F-35 never lost to F-16s in a fair fight

Yeah but the test was unfair to the F-16… and the F-35 still lost.

F-16 was forced to carry two full fuel tanks during maneuvers, and it beat F-35 on half internal fuel.

6df40f No.512270


The Phantom has considerably higher max speed. still I really doubt F-35 is anywhere near as sluggish as the Phantom at turning

6df40f No.512272

File: 4608abe173c85e7⋯.jpg (1.42 MB, 3528x2449, 3528:2449, obama-laugh.jpg)



>Because while the F22 budget was bloated

>let's end this aircraft's production, which is already in service and had far superior specs than contemporary adversaries, because 250 billions is "bloated budget"

>and replace it with a 1 trillion budget mediocre aircraft in trial that is outperformed by 30 year old designs

>also let's trust its development on the same company that made the former aircraft we had to cancel due to bloated costs

This is your brain on Islamic Gommunism.

6df40f No.512273


>F-16 was forced to carry two full fuel tanks during maneuvers

Paradoxically fuel tanks can slightly increase a fighters' instantaneous turn rate but ofc its toll on kinetic energy makes it far from being worthy, like using flaps or airbreaks to increase wing loading or rapidly decelerate.

52be45 No.512275

File: 381b1fc478231f4⋯.gif (3.82 KB, 452x523, 452:523, Rabbi_Solomon_Schindler.gif)

6d9340 No.512280


>Why are we spending all of this money on fighters when we need to replace the b52,b1,and b2s?

Because it is easier to sell to politicians rather than actual practical aircraft that are needed. F-35 creates jobs goyim :^)

Isn't even the US that's guilty of this retarded line of thinking. Britain for example still has no replacement for the Jaguar and the last Government decided to scrap all our Maritime Patrol Aircraft with no replacement; to put in perspective a MARITIME nation has NO Maritime Patrol Aircraft. We finally are getting new aicraft but the Government took their sweet ass time doing it and it had left us with a dangerous hole in our defense.

eb7e70 No.512282


They're rated for the same g load, around 4g.

Most real fighters can do 9g sustained.


It wasn't being measured on instantaneous turn, it was a mock dogfight. And by all accounts the F-35 was the one loosing energy to sustain high instantaneous.

F-16 had no problem zooming past and above it with two fucking fuel tanks, it only got caught once during the entire exercise. Oh and I forgot to mention, the F-16 was a block 42 two seater, so it had even MORE dead weight than just the fuel tanks.

Exercise included dozens of times where F-35 started behind the F-16 (and vice versa) and F-35 only won once. That's pretty fucking bad.

7ed02d No.512320

6df40f No.512335


I know but I was referring to the standard F-4's mach ~2.2 compared to F-35's mach 1.6.


>Most real fighters can do 9g sustained.

No, they can't. The Typhoon is top of its class and it can barely pull above 6.5 sustained, plus the Phantom sustained turn was rather good for its generation because of strong thrust that allowed it to turn at high speeds with little kinetic loss but its turn rate was still abysmal when F-35 has a pretty decent 45 degrees of (supposedly) sustained AoA.

6df40f No.512338


Choosing Super Hornet over ASF-14 was a mistake.

f92ff7 No.512345

It's shit. It's made in peacetime for peacetime use. It's not made with that small gut feeling of fear that has designers, pentagon and CEO's of a company thinking that if they fuck this up there is a possibility that lots of pilots are going to die and they and their loved ones might end up dying as well because they fucked up or were bit greedy.

87caef No.512422


>the last Government decided to scrap all our Maritime Patrol Aircraft with no replacement; to put in perspective a MARITIME nation has NO Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

We still have our Atlantique 2 but they're literally falling apart. There is literally no program to replace them, Dassault even stopped trying to sell Atlantique 3…

And we've been using them instead of the drones we don't have for ISTAR and FAC (because they're actually way better at it… those are a true multi-usage tool) so it's not like they don't know how useful those things are.

ce968c No.512425


The B-21 is supposed to start rolling off the line in 2018, is that not good enough?



If you ever want to feel better, you can always look at Canada.

d043ea No.512438



the jews are taking over the military industrial complex. i hope you know this already lads.

eb7e70 No.512447


>The Typhoon is top of its class

The Typhoon is a European F-18, its a bomb truck with some air to air capability, while still looking dangerous enough to buy.

Typhoon is the kind of aircraft where all three of its tires explode on takeoff. Tires. Where two engines are installed because of crap reliability of just one - and they both flame out at the same time.

Thats like trying to boil an egg for breakfast and setting the kitchen on fire.

87caef No.512451

File: e712d82c2b2194a⋯.jpg (546.61 KB, 2263x1445, 2263:1445, serveimage.jpg)

File: e917a19d4f94135⋯.jpg (85.83 KB, 1050x591, 350:197, serveimage2.jpg)


> hope the J-31 is a direct, 1:1, copy of the F35 with no alterations or improvements. That way at least the Chinese airforce will be just as fucked as every F35 using airforce when SHTF.

It's not, the J-31 is a twin engine with a much slicker profile.

Take a good look. If you didn't know better wouldn't you say that the F-35 is a single engine copy of the J-31?

I'm willing to bet the Chinese got prototyping data of some kind of original X twin-engine proposal (to replace the F-18 and F-15) that never went through because of the VTOL thing.

840797 No.512453

Historically, the determinants of success in dogfight are:pilot skill, ability to catch the opponent off guard and conversely to not to be caught likewise by the enemy and lastly on kinematic performance (turn rate, energy retention etc) to achieve the best possible position in space-time to deliver weapons or to get out of disadvantageous position.

The F-35 depends on 2 things:

1. Stealth:

F-35 does not have all aspect stealth and is optimized for stealth against X-band radars (typically fighter radar) and that only from the frontal aspect. It is a known fact that stealth fighters can be easily detected by longer wavelength radars and by infra red systems. So, depending solely on stealth to achieve surprise against IADS does not seem plausible.

2. Enhanced situational awareness:

F-35 DAS plus its ability to collect all data from on board and off-board sensors and present to the pilot in a ergonomic way supposedly gives it the information edge over adversaries. But, this capability is not platform specific and can easily be added to 4th gen fighters (eg. JAS-39 Gripen E and the tentative Indian "Super Sukhoi" upgrade for Su-30 MKI which even adds L band radars). There also doubts on how much information a single pilot can handle in chaos of air combat and how much these information distribution networks are vulnerable to electronic warfare.

Modern air combat will involve groups of fighters coming close (under AEW guidance), using after burners and launching multiple BVR missiles, using after burners again to avoid enemy missiles and then a reset and repetition of the process. This means that Sukhois with their much greater fuel loads (allowing use of afterburner for longer) and larger missile complement (including both BVR active radar and IR guided missiles) can stay in the game for longer and are less dependent on tanker support.

The problem with F-22 is that:

1. They are built on 1970/80s technology. It has limited computing capability and is unable to communicate with legacy fighters (hence the development of TALON HATE pods).

2. It is not upgradeable given limited computing ability and because any physical modification will alter the fighters RCS and hence would require extensive redesign and retesting process.

3. It, especially the stealth coating requires many man hours of expensive routine maintenance (cant remember the exact figure).

ac0920 No.512455


Well, shit.

b56d3f No.512458

File: 2d3442d7547d8c9⋯.png (45.17 KB, 436x432, 109:108, 1465935260335.png)

840797 No.512459

CAS is dead (against Russia and China) and that was the case against 1960s tech Soviet static and semi-mobile SAMs and AAA operated by Egyptians.

The classic first pass for identification of friendly and enemy forces and second pass for engagement and the modern JTAC guided routines are suicidal against modern air defense systems.

Post Yom Kippur even the vaunted A-10 was relegated to stand off attacks using Mavericks and that too in close cooperation with Army helicopters and artillery in so called JAAT.

Various studies pointed out that a more sustainable and effective alternative to CAS was battlefield air interdiction a concept also echoed by the Army in its Assault Breaker program. Basically the forces in contact would have to look after themselves and stikes would be concentrated on less defended and more defined targets such as follow on echelons, POL dumps etc beyond the battlefield. However, against modern IADS even this is quite difficult and so the acute lack of long range artillery and MRLs in NATO forces is even more absurd.

9bb8c6 No.512460

File: 7cfdc2d201bd421⋯.jpg (64.98 KB, 675x673, 675:673, austrohun_pistol.jpg)


>Modern air combat will involve groups of fighters coming close (under AEW guidance), using after burners and launching multiple BVR missiles, using after burners again to avoid enemy missiles and then a reset and repetition of the process.

That sounds fucking retarded, and reinforces my obsession with strong AA. I mean, all those aircraft need maintenance after each flight hour and you need your pilots to train a lot to be of any use. Meanwhile you can train the crew of an AA battery on simulators, and the missiles too require a lot less maintenance. So you could use all that maintenance money to buy more missiles and train more crew for the batteries. And also buy more batteries.

2016d9 No.512461


>I'm willing to bet the Chinese got prototyping data of some kind of original X twin-engine proposal (to replace the F-18 and F-15) that never went through because of the VTOL thing.

They just use MiG-29 engines.

ac0920 No.512463


Is there any particular advantage to having a manned aircraft carrying an AA missile over firing the missile from the ground? Assuming you could increase the range of the missile to counter the fact that the vehicle firing it would be effectively stationary I can't see any advantage to firing it from an aircraft?

16c5f0 No.512464

File: 9a126d33093c00e⋯.jpg (428.96 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, 7552624006_3f83928e87_b.jpg)

File: 3e3dc23f9eb6233⋯.jpg (266.65 KB, 2579x1521, 2579:1521, 221958omboftf1p6bjn1cb.jpg)


Here is a better picture for the J-31 underside, compared to the F-35.

The question is: does it help having a smoother underside against SAMs, or did Lockheed-Martin discover that it doesn't?

06b734 No.512465


This, this, and this.

2016d9 No.512472


>does it help having a smoother underside against SAMs, or did Lockheed-Martin discover that it doesn't?

It helps but specific curvatures can be almost as well. I suppose chinks just lack the experience and algorithms needed to calculate proper curvature for stealth surfaces so they just simplified the design.

87caef No.512473

>They just use MiG-29 engines.

Yes (well, modified ones and those are placeholders I imagine, like on the PAK-FA) but the airframe does appear to match that configuration way better than the F-35.

As a result the underside of the F-35 is U shaped with all the nubs protruding things they couldn't fit properly in the frame, with tiny bomb bays on the sides due to the space the intake + engine occupies.

Meanwhile the underside of the J-31 is almost W-shaped with the bomb bays on the in the space in between engines/intakes (much simpler to integrate, may have provision to be capable of carrying one big thing in the two…) Hey just like the F-22!

The more I look at it and the more I think that the F-35 is much closer to the F-22 design than the F-35 (again if the airforce has somewhere design documents for a "smaller F-22" it's probably that).

So yeah the "Chinese F-35" is cheaper (everything is cheaper than the F-35 + China), probably a better flyer (simply by assuming it's flying perfs are somewhere in the ballpark of a MiG-29), but it might actually be stealthier too! It's all gonna depend of the engines, if one pop up with F-22 like exhausts and intake welp…

7ed02d No.512476


If a shooting were were to happen I bet we would find that Lockheed would be able to completly create the next gen f35 in a year when it took decades to create the f35.

840797 No.512486

The advantages of aircraft over ground based air defense missiles are:

1. Multirole capability: Aircraft can be used against other aircraft, ships, ground targets etc whereas SAMs are only single role (Buks can be used against ground targets and Serbs used SAMs as free flight rockets for harassment).

2. Mobility and Flexibility: Aircraft can cover long distances so fewer systems are required for the same area as compared to SAMs and also because of their speed aircraft can concentrate on an area of focus from dispersed locations and quickly change focus to another area. Whereas, SAM belts are relatively static and like all static targets can be outflanked or targeted directly creating gaps which cannot be quickly filled (like during IDF crossing of the canal during Yom Kippur)

3. Offensive capability: SAMs are essentially defensive systems and cannot take the fight into enemy territory.

4. Air policing: Peacetime air intercepts and escorts still require visual identification.

5. Radar coverage: Radar, except OTH ones (like Australian JIndalee) work to line of sight. On ground such LOS can be impeded by terrain and man made features. This can be exploited by aircraft and missiles using terrain masking.

Advantages of SAMs over aircraft:

1. Lower training requirement: Training a pilot requires a lot of time and money and also a pool of well educated and physically fit individuals. In addition there are problems of retention of both pilots and maintenance workers and dedication of resources to CSAR to recover downed pilots. Whereas, SAMs although require good technical knowledge are easier to operate as evidenced by their proficient use by Vietnam and Egypt.

2. Lower logistic footprint: Aircraft are tied to large airports because they require large runways, hangars for maintenance, fuel etc. SAMs have lower requirements and can be easily deployed in field and in remote locations.

3. Passive protection: SAMs can use camouflage, decoys, hardening (for static launchers) to hinder identification and targeting. Also ground based systems connected by wire or fiber optic are protected from jamming.

4. Lower cost of procurement: relatively

Interestingly, a CSBA study proposed a "Hard ROC 2.0" strategy for Taiwan in which they advocated procurement of a new ISO container based mobile SAM system like ESSM complemented by CIWS instead of a new fighter. Also their calculations showed that instead of exhausting their missile complement in the first few days these SAMs would be better utilized in a guerrilla manner (causing greater real and virtual attrition in this case as the PLAAF would have to dedicate greater resources to locate and engage them).

eb7e70 No.512488


Look up MiG 1.44

Imagine it without skin, or control surfaces.

Now imagine J-22 without skin or control surfaces.

ac0920 No.512492


>a CSBA study proposed a "Hard ROC 2.0" strategy for Taiwan

Does anyone have a link to this study?

87caef No.512493


Everyone knows the J-20 is a MiG (and that MiG design bureau is probably heavily involved in at least the J-20 and possibly the J-31, or else they've just been sitting on their asses doing nothing for the last 15 years and are still getting checks for some reason. Just like it's Kamov design bureau that actually did most of the Z-10 design), we're talking about the J-31.

840797 No.512496

840797 No.512501

f2b977 No.512507

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.



ac0920 No.512508



Cheers mate.

87caef No.512509


>these SAMs would be better utilized in a guerrilla manner (causing greater real and virtual attrition in this case as the PLAAF would have to dedicate greater resources to locate and engage them).

That's exactly what the serbs did in Kosovo, it does work but the problem when you do that is that you are virtually conceding the airspace to the enemy, allowing him to do strategical bombardment while denying him tactical bombardment.

Which is basically inviting said air-force to bring your country back to the stone age while your military takes little damage… which completely run counterpoint to the whole concept of having an army and will ensure a tactical victory/strategic defeat situation unless you have a plan to break out from that situation.

7709f2 No.512512

File: b63939c1a959a64⋯.webm (1.83 MB, 479x360, 479:360, Stupid Sexy Sukhoi.webm)


What about unmanned aircraft firing manned missiles?

Heard you britbongs have problems with kebabs.You can kill two flies with one stone,you get missile unaffected by flares/chaff,and kebabs get to do what they like the most,explode.

Provided you can fit one towelhead in missile,and train the average sheepfucker to follow the dot on the screen.

eb7e70 No.512518


Buducnost je nesto kao alas mlazna raketa daljeg dometa 50km sa televiziskom kamerom, ali umjesto normalne eksplozivne glave staviti vimpel R-60 sovjetska laka raketa zrak-zrak kratkog dometa. Onda operator samo navodi mlaznu raketu dok ne nadje nepriateljski zrakoplov, i lansira infrarednu raketu da ga unisti.

Ali srbi su degeni pa to nikad netce uraditi, neg ce Lockeeb Martin prvi da skonta.


What the Serbs did in Kosovo was hide their entire military, point some SAM at the sky, and hope there's no ground invasion.

Even so 99% of their rockets were wasted on UAV and decoys America sent to exhaust their defenses.

ac0920 No.512519

File: f0a76e5edb34ce8⋯.jpg (42.38 KB, 600x450, 4:3, Welcome to Wales.jpg)

File: 53a01db287dde59⋯.jpg (20.23 KB, 354x354, 1:1, Welsh condom history.jpg)


>train the average sheepfucker to follow the dot on the screen

Wait, what have you got against the Welsh? They're lovely people! Odd ideas about animal husbandry, but great for Rugby.

c49cdd No.512521

File: add569698d21ba8⋯.webm (10.28 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, Man,Fuck gravity.webm)



I meant goatfucker

The difference is subtle,yet distinct.>>512519

ac0920 No.512523


No worries, it's an easy mistake to make. Also, stop taunting me with videos of beautiful, agile, functional jets.

37bab9 No.512528

File: 5e9aa1e76a74532⋯.gif (4.27 MB, 352x264, 4:3, AA.gif)


So it comes down to the kind of war you want to fight and the area you have to cover. Defending a country like Canada only with SAMs seems to be a terrible idea indeed, but I have to wonder if instead of our dozen Grippens we'd be better off with a dozen S-400 batteries. Something tells me that the answer is yes.

>Air policing

Well, you don't need MBTs for the police, and I think you could check an airliner with a cheaper plane that only has the stuff required to identify and destroy such targets (if necessary).

c49cdd No.512533

File: 2c55e5efa2dfe63⋯.webm (7.01 MB, 854x480, 427:240, SU-35 Aero.webm)


>stop taunting me with videos of beautiful, agile, functional jets

You know you want it bad boy.

c96c15 No.512534



I wonder if rocket assisted lift-off would return to turn air-superiority fighters into VTOL.

87caef No.512553


JATO/RATO is lost technology at this point, I think only the Swiss issue some for their F-5.

c96c15 No.512563


You do realize that J-10 was a already a single engined MiG 1.44?

ce968c No.512576


Zero length launch was experimented with by a few countries, it never went very far because it still has the downsides of a fighter (expensive, high training reqs, requires security and infrastructure at the launch site, needs a runway to land on anyway) and a SAM does most of what it could do anyway.

eb7e70 No.512581


Yeah but gripens are fairly low quality for the price. You'd have been best off asking to buy plans and startup factory for F-16.

ac0920 No.512621


>You know you want it bad boy.

I can't argue with that. How upset do you think the Americans would get if the RAF started buying Migs, Sukhois and maybe some Tupolev heavy bombers?

179008 No.512624


NATO should just rip off MiGs like the Chinks have been doing for years,

ac4a47 No.512636


Well,at least they would save a shit ton of money in the long run.For fucks sake,for the price of one F-35 you can by two SU-35 or EIGHT MiG-29's

Plus I imagine they would be some autistic screeching from Lockheed Martin.

45d7a8 No.512639


Not at all considering that would be one of our "allies" which has been an anchor for the entire time of our alliance with operational equipment

87caef No.512641


I'm pretty certain they're not ripping off anything and MiG works for China in secret because China want to call those designs domestic.

Again MiG design bureau is fully staffed and hasn't really showed anything since a very long time, when Sukhoi has developed 2 fully new planes…

64b52c No.512642

File: f2c0c0d38dd6bbf⋯.jpg (101.23 KB, 1024x596, 256:149, 867842f4gw1ei7st62pt4j20sg….jpg)

4541c0 No.512643


They just started offering the MiG-35 to order.

22ff02 No.512648


Memeing aside, bomb trucks are totally worthless. If it's not difficult to take out cruise missile mid air, taking out much bigger and slower target would be even easier.

22ff02 No.512649


>There also doubts on how much these information distribution networks are vulnerable to electronic warfare

Do you americlaps not test your shit against electronic warfare countermeasures? I can attest to Russians using those out of the ass every time they get a chance.

c96c15 No.512650


This. Common sense dictates that Mikoyan should be financially dead NEETs at this point.

c96c15 No.512651


That's 30 years after their last major project was cancelled. I doubt they would be normally be able to survive the market and develop 4.5++gen tech just by selling spare parts.

37b9c5 No.512652


Gripens are insanely cheap to operate though which a lot of people do seem to forget. We really need that autistic post breaking down purchase cost vs operational costs again, did anyone screencap it?

37b9c5 No.512653


>Do you americlaps not test your shit against electronic warfare countermeasures?

Not really, when we did the E/A-18's were causing us to lose our F-22's left right and center by forcing them into dogfights they couldn't win

c96c15 No.512659


>by forcing them into dogfights they couldn't win

I've seen videos of the F-22s demonstration maneuvering and it was the most impressive shit after the Su-37, not as aerobatic but it looked like gravity and inertia did not mean shit, it could just pull a 45^ vertical and go on at the same speed. How do your pilots keep fucking up in mock dogfights is a mystery to me.

4541c0 No.512660


That's just what happens when the pilot starved of oxygen begins flailing about in the worlds most expensive auto-erotic asphyxiation.

37b9c5 No.512661


Same reason how the F-14 was bought by Iran over the F-15

No payload and hardly anything in the fuel tank. Under actual combat conditions the F-22 is more of a flying brick.

b66452 No.512663


>taking troll images serious

23d0a9 No.512665




Happens more often than you think. There was this F/A-18 pilot in Canada who would make a lot of the F-16 pilots insanely butthurt during airshows as after they had performed their fancy stunts he would take out his Hornet fully loaded and perform the exact same stunts as if to say "Oh lookie, I can do the same without faking it!"

ac0920 No.512669

File: 52019ae1fb8f0e8⋯.jpg (162.34 KB, 768x514, 384:257, Su-34.jpg)


My point exactly, they're significantly cheaper and holy shit - they actually work!

They also have a bit of an aesthetic advantage, I mean, just look at the Su34.


Except that NATO does seem to serve to bring a lot of business to American defense contractors. Not saying that's a primary purpose of the alliance I don't have nearly enough data to prove that … but it does look a lot like that's at least a part of it.

87caef No.512679


The MiG-35 just the export oriented upgrade to bring export MiG-29s (or make new ones, it's a cheap plane) to the 9.17 standard (soviet designation) AKA "MiG-33" AKA MiG-29 SMT in Russian service that they have been sitting on since the cold war (with obviously more modern electronics than the original but still).

It's not what's keeping the lights on…

Where are their equivalent to Su-34? S-47? Su-30-MKM? Su-35?

Unless they're really working on some sort of secret project for Russia (hypersonic interceptor?), they should have run out of money or at least reduce the staff of the design bureau.

Or they're working for all those MiG look-alike for China.

b6236f No.512683


To be fair as long as it's not General Motors, Lockheeb Martin or Raytheon for the most part US arms industry is actually alright.

1680fa No.512684


Unless you're a troll, you're a fucking retard, and should kill yourself.

e7a67a No.512688

File: 894f1a1e409d1dd⋯.jpg (108.2 KB, 1024x694, 512:347, C0vhxuUWIAANNNn.jpg large.jpg)




F15, F16, FA/18 and the F14 are one of the most beautiful planes I ever laid eyes on in films :-(

Sad to see them go. What's fixed wing is currently being used for CAS? Assuming it's still the A10? Or is there just a hole in the US airforce right now/making use of choppers instead?

Also, not intending to derail but did the F14 Tomcat ever see air to air combat or were they used more in a multi-role position? Sorry for the dumbass question, my internet is slow and it's taken 10 minute just to open this tab.

840797 No.512689

IHS Jane's Jet Operating Costs White Paper:


US Armed Forces Aircraft Operating Costs – August 2016:


Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (January 2011) – Dogfight! India’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Decision. By Ashley J. Tellis (I read this some time ago and I think it includes estimates of operating costs):


[PS: While looking for the Dogfight report I found this web page with extensive information on now cancelled Indian MMRCA program:


682585 No.512692


t. (((lockheeb))) shill.

ac0920 No.512693


>As long as its not the largest or most relevant companies (for this discussion) then they're alright.

eb7e70 No.512707


3D tvc is dangerous because it loses energy fast, you have to know WHEN to use it. 2D tvc loses energy even faster, because the same maneuvers are attempted with less efficient thrust direction.

Also just to force airflow from a round engine into a square exhaust you already lose 15% of thrust engine would have through a circular opening. Round peg, square hole…

tl;dr it looks impressive at airshows, but inexperienced pilots are sitting ducks if they use it improperly.


And adversary EWAR is supposed to be worse.

8d044d No.512712

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


The F-14 did see several air to air fights in it's life. The most noted one being the time when a couple of them dispatched two Libyan Mig 23s.

And then the fucking first ever wymin diversity hire pilot crashed one of the jets involved in the shoot down years later. And Dice used the audio from the event in their battlefield 3 trailer

c96c15 No.512719


These three are thrown in as much money as the rest of the arms' industry though.

45d7a8 No.512720


Though as shifty and corrupt as everyone else General Atomics seems pretty alright.

ac0920 No.512723


>General Atomics

What do they make?

45d7a8 No.512724


drones mostly

87caef No.512725


>Sad to see them go. What's fixed wing is currently being used for CAS? Assuming it's still the A10? Or is there just a hole in the US airforce right now/making use of choppers instead?

There is a big hole in strike capabilities in all of NATO, even more now that the Tornado have hit retirement age, it's not just "CAS only" niche that the A-10, there isn't anything in the "tactical attack aircraft" (Tornado, A-6, Jaguar, the Su-24 are still there) niche, the SEAD niche is basically gone (despite Russia showing in Syria they can fuck with AWACS from two countries away). Same as tactical bombing (F-111 but the Su-34 and Tu-22M3 are all still there too).

Basically all planes that can do serious bombing by bringing the payload and the fuel needed for it and can work well at low attitudes against enemy aircraft are the F15SE (US only, and not a big % of the USAF and supposed to be retired progressively when F-35 enter full prod) and the Rafale (French only, will probably be retired for F-35 when enter full prod… take it from a Frenchman with friends working at Dassault, unless somehow Germany announce this year that they don't want the shiniest over-engineered POS ever made, which is probably a sign of the end of the world or something).

Everything else is either a light "multi-role" plane (F-16, Mirage, F-18, F-35, etc…), or high-altitude interceptors (F-22, Eurofighter) coaxed into making ground strikes because they're the only thing left.

That's how insane things in NATO are. We have a doctrine that relies almost excursively on air power and we have in fact very little air-to-ground planes, "all the planes can do it" but the fact is it's "all the planes can do it*"

*"if there is no-one with recent AA down there".

And when you read shit about the S-500 (supposedly they should come online this fucking year or the next… It's not sci-fi vaporware shit) that can basically hit things at a hundred(s?) of kilometers IN ALTITUDE and that will kill anything in a bubble that is dangerously near the armed combat range of those "light mutli-role plane", even if it doesn't work as advertised and it has only a fraction of those capacities, if the F-35 is a lemon we're really, really, really fucked.

840797 No.512742


They plan to stop producing Rafales because of F-35? My sincere condolences.

Then again there is Dassault Neuron, hinting that maybe manned fighter jets will soon go out of style.

179008 No.512750


What a coincidence. Drones happen to be the only thing we're good at.

9e243c No.512754


>General Motors

>largest and relevant

Fuck no, everyone got tired of their shit after Vietnam and now General Motors can't win a contract to save their lives. Chrysler pretty much dominate ground vehicles now but for the most part they are actually not bad. Raytheon and Lockheeb are just blatantly corrupt and keep winning contracts despite their competitors coming out with clearly better products, hell the sole reason why the M1 Abrams does not have the Trophy system or any other APS aboard is due to Raytheon having an exclusive contract for developing one which forbids the US Army from adopting anything other than the Raytheon product which is still on the drawing board and decades away from development. That is the level of kikery going on with the US arms industry that failure is rewarded with no clause to get out if the company can't deliver.


They also own the most politicians and make it a habit of making sure when they make a product it's made in as many states as possible. You think it's honestly coincidence Lockheeb keeps somehow staying afloat despite their numerous fuckups?


Nukes are really the only thing NATO can rely on these days. I guarantee the US will never attack Iran as unlike most of the Middle East they do indeed have something resembling an Air Defense Network that will be able to shoot down US aircraft.

f2e701 No.512759



Shit, had no idea. Thanks for the info. Pity about the Rafale though.

87caef No.512763



>They plan to stop producing Rafales because of F-35? My sincere condolences.

The rumor down the tube is that either we embark on yet another European shitshow with Germany assuming Germany doesn't pick the F-35 to replace their tornados (which is unlikely, they have to do take the decision this fiscal year so we will know soon enough) or we don't.

Either way there should be no more Rafale orders save what is already ordered (and has been reduced), which is 180 for the airforce and 45 for the navy, note that there is a need to order a few extra Navy version in the next batch to compensate for losses in training (What???? Even in peace time you can lose airframes and therefore need spares??? Who would have though!) and this wasn't done so it's actually 43 for the Navy.

So by 2020+ the contract should be mostly completed and because the deployment took a STUPID amount of time, just in time to start retiring them along with the CVN (there is no plan to make another one and his likely retirement date is 2027).

And since everyone but us will have F-35 by then (and we're supposed to have a naval air component fully compatible with UK…), it's doesn't take a genius to figure out what's gonna happen.

c96c15 No.512764


But France never had non-indigenous combat jets. FFS you even made your own strategic bomber in the past.

87caef No.512773


Same can be said for tanks or even rifles.

5f4437 No.512785



The very idea of throwing our industry to the dogs make me mad.

No offense americans, but I'd rather us not having fighters, at all, and throwing the budget into logistic, artillery and SAMs, than spending untold amount of dollarydoos to be at the mercy of americans killswitches, for a plane that we are not gonna use anyway because it will either broken, too costly to maintain, or both.

I mean we already have our army at like 40% capacity, and with the budget cuts we would get actually better capacity just throwing half of our stuff into the sea and re-making AMX-10s, mirages and C-160's. And if germoney or russia gets funny ideas, we either take the dick or nuke them, as was the plan anyway.

292eb9 No.512805

File: 95f1edb0fa8b4f2⋯.jpg (362.81 KB, 1000x562, 500:281, X-2_First_Flight.jpg)

File: e7f25a457bf25e5⋯.jpg (83.17 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, takeoff.jpg)

I think she's pretty.

8ba512 No.512807


The ATD-X has nothing to do with the F-35 project.

6e2196 No.512836


>Everything else is a light "multi-role" plane

Air Superiority: F-16/F-22

CAS: A-10/B-1B(pucker up, bombs incoming)/AC-130

SEAD: F-16/F-18

Strike Fighter/Attack: F-15/F-18

Strategic Bomber: B2/B-52

EW: EA-18(modified F-18)/EC-130H

Maritime Patrol: P-8

Yea pretty much that. Light multi-roles everywhere. They should have just made it an F/A-35 and replaced the F-16/F-18 with it and found a replacement for the F-15 instead of trying to shoehorn it everywhere. And the Marines should just start using helicopters and stop being faggots about VTOL

1747f4 No.512840


They should bring back the USAAF really if the USAF is going to constantly act like faggots.

bbe24c No.512841


Looks rather primitive, mate. That's the looks of a trainer, not a fighter.

0eefc7 No.512846


>CAS: B-1B

The B1-B is a strategic bomber, yes they've been using it for CAS in Afghanistan (because of all those "multi-role" were doing so great…)

but making CAS with such a big, noisy and slow plane is asking to get it shot down.

When they do play CAS in Afghanistan I wouldn't bet China or Iran can't shoot at them from inside their borders…

eb7e70 No.513056


S-500 has a range of a thousand miles, and can hit things in orbit. Its pretty funny in a horrible sort of way.

One of these in Russia can down a F-35 taking off in Germany.


The marines may be drama queens, but theyre the only part of our military that ever fights anyone.

Army is useless because America is sandwitched between leafs and beans, neither of which are worth a bullet. Navy cant fight people without starting a nuclear war, and they physically lack the ability to tackle peer opponents! Air force depends on foreign airports to the point where Air Force are just mercenaries for shit nations…. and like the Navy, out-of-public-eye places to put rapist senators sons.

716a13 No.513106


>S-500 has a range of a thousand miles, and can hit things in orbit. Its pretty funny in a horrible sort of way.

Nah, it can hit a missile/satellite flying (X-37 *cough*) over Germany de facto so high it's in orbit rather than flying, but it's extremely doubtful it can detect and hit a plane at such distance. It should have the same range as the S-400 against planes, which is already fuck huge, 250 miles HI, 25 LOW, means it can shot down US planes before they can get in range with JASSM/AGM-154 (don't worry though… the F-35 can't carry JASSM anyway).

a3acd8 No.513111


It's also only an experimental test bed for 5th gen tech and not a prototype preproduction fighter

840797 No.513113


1) Inevitable bugs in design, but they seems to not being fixed in measurable time

2) Really odd software. With master server, like it's a gaem console.

(1)+(2)="fuck you guys, and your bullshit, offer something that we can use tomorrow, not in the indefinite future". Which is right.

The rest are mostly trade-offs, exaggerated by hopeful competition.

bbe24c No.513119

File: 188e102455b66cf⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 563.16 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, xfa_27_scarface_by_nightwi….jpg)

File: 3fe60c9dac53197⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 730.82 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, xfa-27wallpaper1080p.jpg)

File: f2cbea0be4bdea7⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 86.96 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, maxresdefault.jpg)


What are the chances that we get XF/A-27 as the prototype?

eb7e70 No.513133


I'm guessing here.

Fact vs guess

>Its using an upgrade of the Don radar

<Don has a range of 900km against small hard to see targets, an upgrade would have more…

>Its supposedly the first SAM which has designated AEW

<This should give it significant OTH capabilities, even if the AEW is shit its still better than nothing

>Its stated to have a giant range, yet the missile sizes are unchanged

<This has led me to believe it has a supersonic ramjet stage, or turbofan, or air augmented rocket… which would extend the range far more than paper releases suggest

Also note other tech developments, the Russians are putting 100km range radars on every tank, and an AWACS-like radar array on fighter jets. That data has to go somewhere or they wouldnt bother installing such expensive systems. So where is the data going?

I think Russians have a very ground-oriented air defense strategy, their generals like to make the big decisions. This is why I think the data is going to them, so they can push the button on Triumfator.

c8f42a No.513141

File: 95f7864dedc76af⋯.jpg (137.6 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, bombing.jpg)


>You'd have been best off asking to buy plans and startup factory for F-16.

Why exactly? I doubt we could or should manufacture them in high quantities for ourselves, and I also don't see how we could sell Hungarian F-16s when the international market is already saturated with similar planes.


>100km range radars on every tank

How good are those exactly? Because using a distributed system based on armed mobile bunkers seems to be a lot more robust than virtually anything else.

eb7e70 No.513155


You just need to make enough parts for the F-16, not the whole jet. Engine is by far the toughest part, so just keep buying those from GE or PW.

But by making everything except engines, you could be a key supplier of SPARE PARTS to 30 wealthy nations as their f-16 fleets continue aging. Also as they replace those F16, these nations will pass the Falcon to many other nations, which will all look to you as the cheapest supplier (due to CPI) of spareparts.

And besides you could make 95% of the jet for two times less cost and buy the other 5% as per usual. That way your air fleet could be twice the size, with no Brussels controlled killswitches on your equipment, and every time something breaks you dont have to run to USA.

As for Armata AESA radars, they seem to be capable of performing search function on small targets 100km away in LPI mode, without being detected or targeted by HARM. They seem capable of using the AESA in jamming PGM/SDB aimed at their vicinity. They have clutter stealth so they look like scrap metal on airborne radar, which most radars are programmed not to even display. And any attempt to strike at them from the fround side can be rebuffed by its armor or cannon.

This basically makes the Armata tank a game changer, an air-defense tank. Russians will likely keep it away from the front line, but close enough to provide an air defense umbrella. I see no way to counter it now, not from the air or on the ground, or to even find it. DARPA has to be scratching their heads and burning the candle at both ends to find a solution. Maybe some kind of stealth scout ground vehicle could be sent in huge numbers to penetrate Russian front line and find the Armatas, after that artillery barrage might work.

bbe24c No.513156


>I think Russians have a very ground-oriented air defense strategy

Did not the USSR have a massive deadman's switch missile command network during Cold War? Maybe they have made a similarly decentralized air defense network.

4adbcf No.513161


that system is called dead hand and i would clasify it as one of the worlds superweapons.

Fuck, lets make an equivalent of 7 wonders but with superweapons. That would be cool

b41919 No.513180


>Dead Hand

ie- If you nuke Russia (Moscow especially) everybody dies. It's basically the Samson option: Soviet edition.

5b36bd No.513206

File: b3b5ce35c5fc462⋯.png (74.1 KB, 1064x1926, 532:963, dead hand.png)



Not really a lot of BS was written on it, the "dead hand" thing is the mix up of two things the first is the "perimeter" system which just some sort of automated emergency relay that are in the silos installations (you can see it on some photos), if nukes goes off here and there chances are high the regular networks, especially sat, would be fried/jammed.

So they made a bunch of temporary sat relays in rockets, every silo gets the full set of launch orders (for everyone), silo launch his nukes and his relay rocket, relaying to the next that might not get the orders because the network is on the fritz. It's basically how internet works but form disseminating launch orders.

Then the other thing is a doctrine, in time of crisis a command team, detached from regular command, deep in a bunker somewhere has the authority to bypass everyone and launch a relay rocket with an order of full counterattack in it.

They need to check for presence of nuclear strikes with sensor regularly, if they detect some, then they need to check in with Russian central command, if Russian command doesn't answer they are to assume the worst and proceed to send counter attack order.

Here I made a quick drawing because it's so much simpler to explain that way. Red is nuke/launches, black is comm lines.

First set is how it works normally, second set it how it works if the secondary CP was activated.

Again this is nothing special, the US did have the same idea in mind with the AN/DRC-8.

There is no indication whatsoever that the secondary CP would be automated, quite the opposite, except if you want to call a system collecting data and checking it's connection with central command an automated system… Because it would do is that, then alert whoever is on call when both data collection indicate nukes hit and connections to central command are down.

In fact it's entirely possible the system doesn't exist as a physical thing and is simply a regular silo installation picked at random that gets pre-orders with a lockdown, an high command officer flying in with the codes and an FSB officer to keep things in check.

2e8b0c No.513213

File: e50a1b3741a5656⋯.png (176.77 KB, 1174x446, 587:223, dead hand post.png)


I think the whole idea of the Russians having such a "super weapon" stems from Dr. Strangelove. There it was an automated system with some sci-fi bombs that would go off if some sensors detect nukes.

8d044d No.513224

File: eae089cd5c28dc2⋯.gif (151.72 KB, 644x401, 644:401, DANGAR FLASH.gif)


>Ivan rolls his RADAR equipped tank, crushing the dish

>every Malaysian airlines flight in the world gets simultaneously erased

53b44d No.513235


At least boeing fucks horses instead of taxpayers, you baby dick sucking kike

682585 No.513243

File: b37630096932867⋯.jpg (44.37 KB, 600x600, 1:1, terrified.jpg)


>16k mph

>insane reach

Unless we actually developed and are secretly using a casaba howitzer based AA measures, we're looking fugged.


I feel the same way about it here too.

eb7e70 No.513261


>samson option

The Soviets built a bit more ethics into it.

Jew version of Samson option is, if anything happens to us, the richest and most powerful countries get nuked, therefore its in the interest of the richest nations to take care of us.

Soviet version has a goddamn AI, which uses orbital and ground sensors to determine what got attacked, how, and by whom. Then it punishes the offending culprit.

It's amazing to me that Soviets, who were scum of the earth, still put a Herculean effort into being moral and doing the right thing, compared to fucking Jews.

ce968c No.513272


The US Army is scrambling for some kind of SHORAD. AIM-9Xs with boosters are a likely stopgap.

f59fd7 No.513322


Oh my orthodox brother, you have fallen for everyones little party trick.


Empty out the airframe, takeoff on low fuel.

The Raptor has Thrust Vectoring, and is a beast in close combat.

4bf405 No.513328


this tbh, france doesnt deserve to be ruined for a third fucking time.


4bf405 No.513329




Or a more systematic budget/policy that allocates less to the air force. While encouraging or even mandating aircraft in other branches. While giving them what money was going into airforce. Restrict airforce to certain limited roles and dump their budget in dumbass projects that can be learned from. But not a huge disaster and a bloated base.

840797 No.513336

Regarding Long range SAMs:

1. Aircraft equipped with RWR can detect a radar at longer range than at which the radar can detect the aircraft (Radar waves loose energy exponentially over distance) and the range at which the system has sufficient data for engagement is lesser than detection range. Also, aircraft can use sidelobes etc to detect the radar. At long range the radar wave energy is lower so is easier to jam,

2. Long range shots mean that missiles take long time to reach their target (eg. for earlier AIM-54s this was about 170s to max range). During this time the target can do a lot of things so the missile requires mid-course guidance, the signals for which can be detected and blocked.

Points 1 and 2 mean that a aircraft has sufficient time to react defensively (maneuver to break missile lock, deploy chaff or expendable decoys) or offensively (launch anti-radiation missiles).

3. A radar is a line of sight sensor (other than OTH radars). Say a radar has 300km detection range but it will not be able a aircraft 1km away if it is behind a hill. Therefore, aircraft and missiles can use terrain masking to minimize detection.

4. BVR missiles are notoriously unreliable so require multiple launches for a single engagement. Being quite expensive stocks of such missiles are limited (esp true for Russia) and most of these will be used against friendly targets (not identified properly), against decoys

and false targets created by spoofing etc.

840797 No.513340

To be honest this is a very simplistic 1 vs 1 scenario. IADS consists of many systems with complimentary abilities. Regarding, point 3 radar systems are sited to have maximum possible clear LOS and shadow areas are covered by other radars, also other systems such as EO/IR can be used for aircraft detection.Operations against Russian SAMs are made difficult because they are designed for "shoot and scoot" ability and are protected against direct attacks by CIWS like Pantsir. If NATO air operations against Serbs are any indication this means a lot of resources will have to be allocated to detect and neutralize these systems.

In favor of the attacking force is the development of DRFM jammers such as Britecloud which can be carried by even small UAVs. Another problem for SAMs is loitering munitions/UAVs like Harpy although no Western country deploys them in large numbers which is quite surprising.

Regarding Armata:

1. Russians are still far behind in AESA technology (eg. see their problems regarding new corvettes)

2. A tank has limited power generation capability and limited crew. Giving an already overwhelmed tank commander more info well beyond his area of concern is absurd and who is going to maintain the radar (yes AESA are very reliable) in the field when explosions, uneven terrain and the recoil of the tanks main gun wreaks havoc to more simple optics and fire control systems.

3. Military communication systems have limited bandwidth. The more users on a network the slower it gets also as more information is gathered more computing power is needed to asses it and to disseminate it to relevant systems more bandwidth is required.

4. The APS on Armata can only target ATGWs…

840797 No.513342

…coming straight in the frontal aspect. It cannot target top attack missiles (Javelin, Spike NLOS), APFSDS rounds from other tanks, anti-tank artillery and mortar rounds (Stryx, Merlin, SMART, Copperhead), loitering munitions/UAVs.

5. The unmanned turret on Armata may seem revolutionary but what happens when the optics fail (machine gun fire, shrapnel, lasers etc.). Even with state of the art optics in the heat of battle the best means of situational awareness for a tank commander is to stick his head out.

590d74 No.513347

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.



This might even save the BRRRTTT from going silent forever.

2e8b0c No.513353


I know that such theorycrafting is kind of pointless, but how futile would be to try and counter a conventional air force with ground-based AA for defence, and missile attacks for a more proactive defence? By the later I mean trying to take out enemy air bases with seismic missiles. Of course you'd have to constantly scout new ones as they start propping up, but you could use cheap and stealthy UAVs, scouting kamikaze missiles, or good ol' spies for that. Of course it only works on the long run if the enemy isn't willing to fight for decades, or if you are fighting a ground war and you use this method to actively push the enemy further and further away on the ground, thus making the life of their air force harder and harder as they have to fly longer to reach your country.

590d74 No.513354


This. Our whole aeronautics industry survives solely due to the essential monopoly of a SINGLE F-16 spare part.

590d74 No.513358


> or offensively (launch anti-radiation missiles).

At best that would destroy the launching platform before the plane is killed but would not protect the plane since ( I presume) S-300 series missiles are all at least partially self-guided.

590d74 No.513360


>1. Russians are still far behind in AESA technology (eg. see their problems regarding new corvettes)

How "far behind" can they be? Nips deployed the first fighter-mounted AESA in the freaking 90s, the Su-35's PESA would outclass every western-AESA's equivalent PESA for a small fraction of an AESA's cost and MiG-35 already have an at least functional AESA despite of its small cone and low cost development.

5b36bd No.513363


>1. Russians are still far behind in AESA technology

No they're not, they fitted so many shit with so many powerful PESA that to them AESA isn't the big quality jump from pulse like in NATO, so it's not considered urgent.

Tech went: pulse->PESA->AESA

Russia (and France) airfleet went: pulse->PESA->AESA

Most of NATO airfleet went: pulse->AESA, jumping a gen (*cough* and spending 15-20y with outdated radar tech *cough*)

As for the Russian surface fleet having problems, the Russian surface fleet is always the last item on the briefing. Always was, always will be. I'll be extremely worried the day they don't have problems.


>…coming straight in the frontal aspect. It cannot target top attack missiles (Javelin, Spike NLOS)

So the soft kill VLS system on it the fact it's covered RD-ERA is for shit and giggles?

The lower fixed system is meant to engage TANK ROUNDS (just like the old Drozd concept was meant to fuck up AP and HE shells on vehicle with an armor too thin), wether they can actually to it or not is up to debate but it's not ATGM they're trying to counter (it works on them too, obviously).

As demonstrated in Syria even on old T-72 ATGMs are easy to shrug off with armor upgrades already widely available in the russian tank fleets.

Also existing systems are already effective against Top attack missile, "Top attack" is a nice marketing phrasing but it doesn't mean the missile fall on the tank at a 90° angle, and Arena (or similar Israeli/US German, etc… systems), do provide cover from threat coming on a 65° arc, which is more than enough to defeat most missile coming from an upward source (since all of those system are meant for urban combat, they're required to have a fairly high "elevation"), so it's highly dubious their new system would have WORSE capabilities than their older one…

f0e2a8 No.513367


Didn't the US Army threaten to bring back the USAAF when the USAF said they wanted rid of the A-10?

840797 No.513437



Russians are stuck with PESA not because of it's advantages vs AESA but because of their failure to field an operational AESA radar. The development of AESA radars of Zhuk series was started in the 80s and despite serial claims of functional AESA versions no radar was fielded. If they had a functional one it would have been offered for MiG-35 for the Indian MMRCA contract given the huge financial incentive. In June 2016 a new Zhuk-AM/AME radar for MiG-35 was unveiled but Egyptians MiG-35s will have Zhuk-ME (pulse-Dopller) despite having the latest Russians avionics eg. MSP-418K active jammer pods, which have not even entered Russian service as yet, so the argument of them being monkey models doesnt seem strong.

>"Top attack" is a nice marketing phrasing but it doesn't mean the missile fall on the tank at a 90° angle

The missile does not have to fall on the tank at 90deg to be effective as the armor on the top is comparatively thinner and areas such as hatches, optics (I know Armata's turret is unmanned) and engine top cannot have heavy armor.

The problem with APS is that they have not been tested in conditions stimulating combined arms warfare. Can an APS distinguish between an unguided mortar rnd and a guided one? Can an APS remain functional when it is kept on for days? Will APS be used when tanks are operating with infantry? etc. My point being that Armata is not the "super tank" it is touted to be.

840797 No.513448

OK I read this:


"The soft-kill component consists of four smoke grenade dischargers on the turret top, each with twelve grenades. These serve not only to visually obscure the tank, but release multi-spectral aerosol clouds that may mask the vehicle’s infrared signature and block targeting lasers and radars. Two of the launchers have a vertical orientation, allowing them to counter top-attack missiles. In theory, the soft-kill measures might help ward against deadly infrared guided Javelin or laser-guided Kornet missiles. However, some sources argue that modern IR sensors are sufficiently powerful not to be confused by such a cloud."

Honestly, did not know of the vertically oriented soft kill system but still it can be defeated by man-in-the-loop missiles.

For an overview of the hard-kill component read:


From IHS Jane's Defence Weekly:

Russia's airborne radar industry has "almost no possibilities" for developing an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar in the near term, industry specialists from Poland, Ukraine, and other East European nations have told IHS Jane's.

Russian military aircraft marketing representatives have repeatedly stated an AESA radar will be available when the PAK FA/T-50 next-generation fighter starts series production, yet Russia's radar industry faces several obstacles to achieving this.

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia's airborne radar sector has had two principal actors. Two design houses emerged from the radar and electronic systems conglomerate that had been responsible for aircraft onboard systems: NIIR Phazotron, located in central Moscow, and NIIP Tikhomirov, based just outside Moscow in Zhukovskiy. (rest of the article is behind paywall)

I know Polish and Ukrainian experts but Jane's pretty reliable.

590d74 No.513464


>but Jane's pretty reliable

I am under the impression that Jane's in their books put stats of western fighters on clean configuration except for ferry range (where they typically gave western fighters fuel-tanks without mentioning it).

840797 No.513504

eb7e70 No.513522


1. LPI (low probability of intercept) antennas, some analog, some pesa, some aesa, make it possible for ground stations to track and target aircraft without them noticing this.

2. Datalinks today are directional and jam resistant.

3. Ground radars are emplaced with this in mind, usually on high ground. And are encircled by local air defenses which wouldnt let anything sneak into 1km range.

4. BVR missiles havent been unreliable for close to 30 years now, most kills in desert storm were BVR.


- DRFM is countered neatly by AESA and many PESA types, its really only useful against classic PESA with predictable frequencies.

1. They've placed AESA on tanks and even on missiles, which is ahead of our technology. By what metric are they behind? Not using expensive as fuck materials?

2. The data isnt analyzed by the tank crew, or the pakfa crew, I cant figure out why you would think this.

3. AESA can be used for directional communications antennas, of very high bandwidth.

4. The APS cant target anything, but the radar can. One stated goal of the radar triggered ERA is killing APFSDS.

5. Armata doesnt prevent the commander from usking eyeballs.

5b36bd No.513523


Simplest way to counter the raptor is to refuse the engagement, never fly in his "comfort area" (high altitude, above clouds, big open skies).

That's how all free form (non-scripted) engagement with Rafale/Raptors ended, each stayed in his "comfort area", the raptors HI, the Rafale LOW, they skimmed each other in BVR, but neither did anything (IIRC on the third exercise a Raptor did got a firing solution on a Rafale… so a 0-1 out of a five 5vs5 "fights").

Sure in case of total war one would assume they would be less shy (but then you fight as you train) or that Russian bombers escort won't get to pick their engagement altitude, but at X hundreds of millions a piece and no spare, their pilots aren't especially daring…

eb7e70 No.513525

File: 2afe89db892725e⋯.jpg (72.58 KB, 639x426, 3:2, tmp_Vityaz_Hero_50N6A_mult….jpg)



Russia has several operational AESA radars in service, it hasn't fielded any because it hasnt had a war against any air powers. Can you fucking stop, my autism is forcing me to address all your weasel-word manipulative bullshit and its taking up too much of my time.

6037ba No.513526


In the case of "Total War" scenario I strongly suspect we would see the return of Air-to-Air Nuclear Missiles.

eb7e70 No.513527


The point isnt to kill the raptor, its to kill the bombers/cas its protecting. Raptor cant refuse engagement, its a protector, it has to in the teeth of danger.

840797 No.513645




Most Desert Storm air kills were WVR.

If Russians have an operational AESA in tanks no less then please explain:

1. Why their premier fighter offering is without a AESA radar when it will have to compete against fighters equipped with one for orders?

2. Why Egyptian MiG-35s have the latest Russian IRST, targeting pod and jammers but an older pulse Doppler radar instead of ZhukAM/AME?

3. Why is no AESA radar offered for upgrade of large number of exported Flankers and Fulcrums?

Even if Russia does not want AESA radars it wants foreign exchange.

5b36bd No.513664


Because MiG "35 are just an advertising thing, it's a MiG-29 9.17 (soviet era upgrade) with a few gimmick attached to them. Their main job is to be cheap.

There is a grand total of 48 MiG-29 in service in Russia, everything else is in reserve, that includes the 20 9.13 at Yerevan AB that are probably gonna be transferred to Armenia as soon they get something better (the 28 others are 24 SMT and 4 UBM).

So you're like "Why does russian doesn't develop top shelf upgrade package" on a plane they're clearly phasing out and aren't even using.

They've way more MiG-31 than 29…

a1a714 No.513674


To be fair the MiG-29K is brought back to life fully upgraded after two decades of stasis since it occupies a niche that arguable Su-33 should never had in the first place but other than that, yes, the MiG-29 might be the sexiest plane in existence IMO but it's practically useless for the world's most expansive country after the Cold War, since it's at its core a point-defense fighter incapable of offering of air-policing freaking Siberia, plus the Su-27 family can almost fully compensate for the MiG-29's intended role (just have their fuel tanks 1/3 filled in the frontline and voila, you have a point defense interceptor of equal or/and better performance as the MiG-29).

5b36bd No.513683


Yeah but I got a feeling the Russian Naval Aviation (I don't have the numbers, but I think even them also have more 31 than 29) somehow managed to sneak in an order with the MiG-29K2 for India (or a side deal or something).

Because they seem to upgrade their Su-33 to Su-30SM levels, and the Su-33 in service are in fact Su-33? (designation unknown) with a serious upgrade given the debrief from Syrian ops (In fact only 10 Su-33 targets were given from the carrier out of 1300, 318 targets were guided from Hmeimim CP and 133 from FAC on the ground (so far so good), but 839 targets were either done on their own or using other planes data… Which mean tactical datalink and ground radar mode, none of which were on a regular Su-33. So they already got a serious upgrade and they're getting a new one http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/july-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/5401-russia-s-naval-aviation-to-upgrade-all-su-33-fighters-to-su-30sm-level.html

Most people assumed with the new MiG-29K that they would be retiring the Su-33, but that's clearly not what's going on, so it's a guessing game what they're doing. But as I said nobody in Russia gives a fuck about the Russian surface navy so it might be a case "with this year budget we can do that!", this shit happens also in Russia.

144e70 No.513688


That's interesting. Up to last year the official statement was that they were withdrawing all Su-33s from service because their upgrade cost would be as much as replacing them all with a superior number of MiG-29Ks.

144e70 No.513689



By the way where do they plan to use them? I thought Kuznetzov's deck was oversaturated by having to accommodate literally the entirety of Russia's naval fixed-wing aviation.

5b36bd No.513697


No clue.

They might use them in coastal defense for the Northern fleet and arctic bases: big range, no problem with short runways & limited parking space (since they would sleep inside), maybe they will send them to Nagurskoye AB or somewhere else.

840797 No.513701


I was clearly referring to Flankers and Fulcrums exported to other countries, not those in service with Russia.

With regards to MiG-29 not being in Russian service in sufficient numbers to make development of an upgrade package feasible, they offer MiG-21 upgrade packages eventhough they dont have any in service, Why? because there is a market for it.

4f03e8 No.513739


What market?

Nearly all users of MiG-29 are broken ass countries that can't afford the upkeep on their MiG-29 fleets (but can on the much more rugged MiG-21)…

Everyone solvable has either the money to buy Sukhois (which aren't that expensive) or switched to NATO (IE soon to be enemies).

Even the handful of SMT Russia is using are in fact rejects, from the Algerian contract (they cancelled mid order and bought more sukhois instead).

Who's gonna buy them? Ukraine, a country they're nearly at war with? Yemen, whose state barely exist and is under embargo? Etc…

Egypt """bought""" some, but Egypt is broke, they bought them with an IOU (which is a diplomatic deal and not a real buy, like nearly all the stuff Egypt bought recently).

That's the kind of deal the MiG-29 show up (same for Syria and Serbia), it's pretty much gifts from Russia and Russia doesn't have the money to squander on playing Santa Claus when it's own airfleet need airframes and upgrades…

So yeah the main goal of the MiG-29 is being really cheap, that way they can gift them without too much pain, while any paying user is to buy sukhois (and support the Russian airforce by driving the sukhois costs down).

144e70 No.513757


> while any paying user is to buy sukhois

Though you are right I have to point out that a MiG-29 family and an Su-27 family of the same era have the exact same performance in all roles, even at air-to-air payload in later variants, with MiG-29 having a significantly lesser maintenance cost.

The only significant advantage of Flankers over Fulcrums are in the long-range interception role due to greater combat range and bigger radars and that's a role the vast majority of countries do not really need outside of a World War scenario.

7ed02d No.513770

File: 96dffe16ca38a9d⋯.jpg (113.38 KB, 653x295, 653:295, rlabfdndjnelosjgyuw5.jpg)

Is there a market for something like this?

1fbd44 No.513774


>expensively converting an expensive civilian airliner to launch expensive weapons systems.

I'm going to say no. A much more ghetto glide bomb retrofit on smaller cargo planes might be marketable.

31006f No.513789


AIM7 is a BVR missile, look at that list again, then at your claim

>BVR missiles are notoriously unreliable

25 vs 12 for medium vs short range missiles.

Even Sidewinder is capable of BVR since the L model.

Russians have an operational AESA in tanks no less then please explain:

>Why their premier fighter offering is without a AESA radar when it will have to compete against fighters equipped with one for orders

T-50 has no fewer than six AESA arrays per aircraft. One nose, one tail, two cheek, two LERX.

>Why Egyptian MiG-35s have the latest Russian IRST, targeting pod and jammers but an older pulse Doppler radar instead of ZhukAM/AME?

Because they chose it. What a smart question.

>no AESA radar offered for upgrade

What do you call the MiG-35? There are simply no takers when Israel can sell US subsidized AESA for below market value and even on such platforms as the Soviet MiG-21.

Any more smart questions?

a3921c No.513811


Yeah but they haven't sold a regular Su-27 for a long time. Even Uganda and Angola are buying some Su-30 (second hand Su-30K for Angola, which are arguably just a Su-27PUM but still), but even those have twice the range and payload of a MiG-29. As for maintenance, Maintenance costs are directly tied to industrial networks, MiG-29 was cheaper to maintain, it's dubious it still is when no-one is making parts anymore save a trickle from Russia and the fleets to cannibalize have been cannibalized for 26 years. Meanwhile everyone and his mom is making Sukhois parts, because most export deals include some degree of local production.

3499f7 No.513816


>T-50 has no fewer than six AESA arrays per aircraft. One nose, one tail, two cheek, two LERX.

T-50/Su-57 is not offered for export (as yet). The best Russian fighter for export is Su-35.

>There are simply no takers when Israel can sell US subsidized AESA for below market value and even on such platforms as the Soviet MiG-21.

Israel cannot sell upgrades for Russian fighters without their consent (intellectual rights etc).

>Because they chose it. What a smart question.

So the Egyptians want the best IRST, the best targeting pod, the best jamming pod but a legacy radar despite all the advantages of an AESA radar and despite the fact that how badly Russia wants to show India that they have an operational AESA radar for Fulcrums.(See every Aero India Show since the MMRCA announcement).

Regarding effectiveness of BVR missiles read this:


"88 AIM-7 shots were made, giving a Pk of 0,27. Out of 24 AIM-7 kills, at least 9 were from visual range. For F-15Cs, 12 AIM-9 launches resulted in 8 kills (Pk 67%), and 67 AIM-7 launches resulted in 23 kills (Pk 34%).

US Navy F-14s and F-18s fired 21 AIM-7s for one kill (Pk 4,8%),

…on Jaunary 5th 1999, two MiG-25s (equipped with radars for a change, which they used to illuminate US fighters) violated southern “no-fly” zone, and succeeded at evading 3 AIM-7, 1 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-54 missiles, all fired by US fighters from beyond visual range."

Regarding Armata please give me 1 non Izvestia or Sputnik source that proves (not speculates) that Armata has AESA radar panels.

I think we have deviated to far from the topic at hand and the point of discussion is now mere satisfaction of personal ego so it is better to bury the hatchet and move on.

241eb9 No.513821


You do realize that it would make a stand-off platform that could theoretically atomize your entire East Coast with a single unit, right?

With long range fighter escorts (like modified B-1's) it would be a superweapon.

241eb9 No.513824


That's why I said Su-27 family. Su-30s are the equivalent of MiG-29M (that unfortunately did not enter mass production) and the slightly less capable MiG-29SMT modification of pre-existing Fulcrum airframes.

Still you are right. Post-2010s maintenance of Fulcrums is becoming more and more difficult unless if Mikoyan REALLY kicks the door in at the international market with the -35s, which though unlikely it does not sound unrealistic given that MiG-35 is comparably capable to 4.5+gen fighters of its weight class at probably less than 2/3rds their cost, only the GripenNG and F-16V would be competition, and only if they would achieve massive sales to drive down its cost to the middle two-digits $$millions area. The main problem is that Mikoyan's traditional customers are either in the shit or switching to western suppliers for diplomatic reasons or both.

241eb9 No.513825


>So the Egyptians want the best IRST, the best targeting pod, the best jamming pod but a legacy radar despite all the advantages of an AESA radar

That's because an AESA is multiple times more expensive and more demanding in maintenance than its equivalent PESA with similar performance whereas the rest add no considerable costs compared to their previous generation equivalents.

a9d624 No.513828


T-50 is offered for export, it was designed with a foreign partner for fucks sake. This has to be the twentieth blatant lie you've posted so far.

>Israel cannot sell upgrades for Russian fighters without their consent (intellectual rights etc).



850980 No.513835


>Israel cannot sell upgrades for Russian fighters without their consent (intellectual rights etc).

I seriously hope this is bait.

241eb9 No.513836

File: dda90c118cc77ca⋯.jpg (22.08 KB, 506x208, 253:104, i wonder who's behind this.jpg)


It's more of a technicality.

3499f7 No.513859



Seriously…military equipment cannot be modified without agreement of the OEM and it's parent country. You cannot offer upgrades for F-16s for example without license from Lockheed Martin (as far as I know you cannot integrate new weapons without their consent). An example of control exerted by the parent country on exported weapons is the recent blockage by US of Turkey's attempt to hire Pakistani pilots as trainers for its F-16s.

For examples of Russian attempts to exercise such rights:


"Bulgarian MoD sources say Elbit has not been able to provide a valid licence for doing the upgrade work issued by Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant, the design authority for the Mi-17 and Mi-24.

It was initially suggested that Elbit had submitted such a document during the tender procedure, but Russian government officials denied having provided such a licence to the Israeli company relating to the Bulgarian tender.

All the losing bidders in the tender had obtained such a licence in advance and protested to the Bulgarian MoD, requesting the tender to be relaunched and to be allowed to submit updated proposals."


"It must be noted that there are restraints which could restrict the growth of the Hind upgrade market. Some Russian contractors have been unhappy about foreign companies upgrading the Mi-25/35 citing intellectual property rights to the original design of the aircraft and its systems."

An Israeli company obtained license for Kalashnikovs no less:http://www.thedailybeast.com/israelis-will-soon-be-mass-producing-ak-47s-for-the-us-market

Why Russia has not protested openly China's development of J-11 variants? Probably because of money. Why Russia allowed Israeli Mig-21 LanceR and MiG-29 SPEAR? I dont know. If there are any other examples of Israel upgrading Russian fighters then please tell.

>T-50 is offered for export

I clearly said "as yet". If as you say it has been offered for export then to who? The only offers being made are to India to invest more money in the development to which they have not said yes.

From Su-57's wikipedia article:

"Russia's Centre for Analysis of World Arms Trade predicts that the PAK FA will be available for export in 2025."

>That's because an AESA is multiple times more expensive and more demanding in maintenance than its equivalent PESA.

And that was my initial point when I questioned the installation of AESA panels on Armata. AESA radars are too expensive and require too much maintenance for a fighter (which will be looked after by a team of well trained support staff in an airport) but are alright for a tank which will have to endure multiple explosions in close proximity, shrapnel, bullets, uneven terrain and will be maintained by in field by grunts.

3499f7 No.513931


>T-50 is offered for export

From the September issue of AIR International:

"According to a press release published by

Sukhoi for MAKS 2017 currently: “. . . the

first stage of state trials is nearing its end . . .

Characteristics of stability and controllability

at subsonic and supersonic speed, at

low and high flight altitudes, as well as on

supercritical angles of attack are confirmed.”

The first stage of state trials is in fact not a

very advanced level of testing; it concludes

with the acceptance of the aircraft as a flying

vehicle. Only the completion of the second

stage, when mission systems and armament

are tested, allows the aircraft to be officially

entered on the air force’s inventory.

…According to the aforementioned Sukhoi press

release, the PAK FA “will be the company’s

primary product on the market of aircraft

technology starting from 2020”.

>it was designed with a foreign partner for fucks sake


"…despite Russian pressure to ink the long-pending final R&D contract for the FGFA, India now wants to know whether it will get good value for the estimated $25 billion it will spend to induct 127 of these single-seat jets…But IAF has been unhappy with the Russian FGFA called Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA because the jet lacks proper stealth and its engine does not have "enough thrust", which are among 43 critical modifications or shortcomings it pointed out earlier."


"…From New Delhi’s perspective, it appears that the high costs of the PAK-FA are borne from the platform’s design still not meeting IAF requirements, such as a lack of certifiable active electronically-scanned array radar and Moscow’s own lack of interest in the program.

In July, Russian defence industry analysts and observers have told IHS Jane’s that the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) was not pushing for the PAK-FA as the platform does not offer a substantive improvement in value over the Sukhoi Su-35, one of the VKS’ emerging mainstay fighter platforms."

>This has to be the twentieth blatant lie you've posted so far

All my lies are supported by credible sources. While in your replies you have not cited one source, not even Sputnik.

a3921c No.513938


>ToI, Defenstar.

>Credible sources.


Everyone knows the "PAK-FA" isn't a thing, they're an airframe prototype with placeholders for most systems, it's not even a serial airframe production, each have small variants.

So when presstitute (one of the worst living liveform in existence) tells shit like "India don't want to buy them because their engines and radars aren't good enough" it's saying water is fucking wet since those planes (as in "flying vehicles"… that's the proper Russian translation, they're not fighters, bombers, interceptors, they're flying things) don't have either!

It's like complaining the X-32 had a F-16 radar (if it even had any).

And you fucking bet VKS isn't pushing for them… why would they, when it's clear prototyping isn't done???

3499f7 No.513954


>ToI, Defenstar.

>Credible sources.


The Defenstar article quotes IHS Jane's. I shared this link only because IHS Jane's original website does not work on Tor Browser.

>Everyone knows the "PAK-FA" isn't a thing, they're an airframe prototype with placeholders for most systems

From AIR International September issue:

"…on the first day of this

year’s MAKS 2017

air show. In front of

the latest PAK FA

prototype, T-50-9, in Putin’s presence, the

preliminary conclusion on the first stage

of T-50 testing and a recommendation to

produce an initial batch of the fighters was

to be signed. In addition to the planned

signing, the T-50 was due to be officially

designated the Su-57…

The latest aircraft, T-50-9, is the first to have a

sensor suite like production versions of the Su-


Russia expects to buy fewer Su-57s than

previously planned. On March 23, 2015, deputy

minister of defence Yuri Borisov visited the plant

at Komsomolsk-on-Amur and said that the air

force might buy fewer T-50s than planned in

the National Armament Programme for 2020

(GPV-2020), buying instead lower-cost Su-30s

and Su-35s. Russian media quoted a source

within the Russian MoD who stated the air force

will order only one squadron by 2020 (Russian

fighter squadrons have 12 aircraft), instead of

the 60 aircraft promised by GPV-2020.

One reason for the reduction in planned

Su-57 production is internal competition

from the latest versions of fourth-generation

fighters, particularly the Su-35. Apart from

the Su-57s stealth qualities, there is little to

choose between the two and the Su-35 is

constantly being improved. After Borisov’s

visit to Komsomolsk-on-Amur, the Russian

Ministry of Defence, which has already ordered

98 Su-35S and 116 Su-30SM fighters, issued

an official statement about reduction in the

number of PAK FAs to be ordered. Added to it

was the observation that “the Su-35 fighters of

the so-called fourth-plus generation show good

characteristics in the opinion of military pilots”…"

a3921c No.513971


And it's BS we've known for years, they've order a batch of twelve airframes for prototyping. So far they made 9. They're in sets of 3 with clear variations between them.

The rest is RUMORS spread by the same presstitutes, now refuted by themselves.

They never order 60 or any other numbers than the initial prototype batch, they "kept the possibility open", basically if the PAK-FA project made great strides, they kept some room in the procurement budget to fund an initial production quickly before 2020.

Given that they haven't even finished the prototyping batch in 2017, it's insane to think they will be ready for full prod before 2020, so they spending the money on something else when readjusting the budget mid-course.

All current projects (PAK TA, DA, FA) are meant for beyond 2020, maybe 2030.

Frankly it was consider urgent in late 2000's early 2010's but the thing has been clearly put on the backburner since (same with Chinese).

Do you want to know what happen?

The first serial F-35 came out.

Since then, it's no longer urgent: engineers can take their sweet time. Maybe they won't even bother fielding stealth air superiority planes…

Russia, India and China got scared by everyone surrounding them fielding F-35 instead of F-16…

and now that the F-35 are actually there, they're not anymore.

5f0d89 No.513975

File: 48017a0236c02b3⋯.png (59.24 KB, 673x496, 673:496, ClipboardImage.png)


>Do you want to know what happen?

>The first serial F-35 came out.

Also Russia's economy ate shit.

a9d624 No.513979

File: 2149be546e55b60⋯.jpg (44 KB, 550x304, 275:152, 6984568331_e079edf599_b-55….jpg)

File: e94113909b5ce03⋯.jpg (35.88 KB, 550x427, 550:427, b2f4deb0ea8164716dd2997914….jpg)


The initial Sukhoi claim was to put PAKFA into service in 2025, so it's not like they went over the limit. If they're saying 2020 now, that's actually faster than what I thought.

It flew in 2010, so it's 10 years from first flight to entering service. F-22 first flew in 1997 and was introduced in 2005, that's 8 years. I think the PAKFA first flight was rushed for proopaganda purposes, Lockheed was showing off two stealth jets, and many other companies had designs as well, while people were bitching that PAKFA is vaporware. So Sukhoi did an early flight, when most of the systems werent together yet..

Given this fact, and the disparity in funding SEVEN TIMES MORE FOR F-22 Sukhoi is doing ok. MiG is getting $80 million a year to design the MiG single engine stealth by 2030.

The only real downside is their lack of focus on stealth, they seem to be fine with being as visible as a F-35. I think development in bistatic radar, passive radar, and infrared are completely shitting on the entire stealth concept, it's completely deflated.


>dollar to ruble conversion

You realize that has nothing to do with economy right? It's completely a government decision to print less or more money, and it's completely a government decision how much to spend on defense. North Korea spends a shitload of money on defense and has nukes despite having the GDP half the size of Detroit.

Russia did have a international-based boom after the recession, which led to a bust from 2015 to mid 2016 when European and American socialist policies failed. But they're back growing now.

a3921c No.513981


Given that the Russian state doesn't pay anything in dollar and the Russian economy is a strongly export based economy (and those exports are payed for in Euros and Dollars), that graph is actually good thing, but hey keep c/c press releases and don't use your brain…

What exactly is vital for the Russian economy to need dollars to pay for?

Assessing foreign economies in U.S. dollars only works when energy, the thing the economy is running on, is sold in dollars (so called petrodollars). Which is largely true for everyone on the planet… except for Russia.

3499f7 No.514008


>they've order a batch of twelve airframes for prototyping. So far they made 9

"The president of UAC, Yuri Slyusar,

said days before MAKS that three more T-50

prototypes would have to be built for the

contracted research and development work and

the Komsomolsk-on-Amur plant will commence

deliveries of the initial batch of production-

standard fighters in 2019."

>They never order 60 or any other numbers than the initial prototype batch

The number 60 comes form the National Armament Programme for 2020 (GPV-2020).



"T-50 fifth-generation fighter aircraft (PAK FA). Ten to be purchased in 2013-2015. An additional 50-60 to be procured in 2016-2020."


"An interesting presentation by the United

Engine Corporation from 2013 shows

production plans as they were then: 150

izdeliye 117 and 340 izdeliye 30 engines to be

built before 2025. That means production of

the first-stage T-50 was not planned beyond

the initial 60 aircraft (currently reduced to 12);

the remaining 30 engines are just enough

for prototypes and other trials. The other

number, 340 izdeliye 30s, is interesting.

Deducting, some engines for tests, suggests

that production of 150-160 second-stage T-50

fighters during 2020-2025 was planned. Now

the plans are undoubtedly being downsized."

I think that the real Su-57 will be "Izdeliye 30" equipped ones which are pretty far off as the engine was tested on ground in 2016.

I think the initial batch has been ordered apart from national pride to assure the Indians, as their money is needed for further development. As no country will pin hopes on stealth fighter which has not been in service for sometime given the problems faced by USAF.

Also there is the notion of a product not being in service with the parent country as having poor prospects of future upgrades and support. That is why Russia inducted MiG-35 and BMPT (when T-15 with Epoch turret offers similar capabilities).

5f0d89 No.514039

File: 6399440e24dc843⋯.png (24.92 KB, 499x388, 499:388, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 9cf7e6477352e6a⋯.png (39.49 KB, 717x332, 717:332, ClipboardImage.png)


>hey keep c/c press releases and don't use your brain…

Their currency ate shit because their exports ate shit. Russian exports are more than 50% oil and the value of oil ate shit when OPEC tried to assassinate North American shale in mid-2014, at the same time as the third round of Crimea-related sanctions took hold.

Russian GDP growth has flatlined and the defense budget has been cut twice in the last two years.

>country that can't afford to buy new fighters didn't really want them anyway, claims frenchman

a3921c No.514056


>Oil is 100$ a barrel. RUB is 30=$1. Russia get RUB 3 000 per barrel.

>Oil is 50$ a barrel. RUB is 60=$1. Russia get RUB 3 000 per barrel.

>What are basic math.

The ruble is pegged to the barrel price you moron INTENTIONALLY BY RUSSIA in way they get the same amount of money NO MATTER THE MARKET VARIATIONS.

The oil crash was mostly brought out by an excess of production, due to KSA augmenting their prod' at the same time fracking oil really became available and the economy was at an all time low in manufacturing and subsequent transport (low demand).

As a result they sold LESS oil, which is in part responsible for the lack of growth, the other being simple math from the massive amount (the biggest in human history) pull back of funds from foreign investors (which again… not a bad thing because in the panic the Russian state and semi–state enterprises were all ready to dip into the rainy day funds and bought back at low price every all the shares of important companies that were under foreign control established under Yelstin in a move that is the BIGGEST REASON for the kvetching about Russia, because only the Chosen are allowed to do market manipulation on that scale).

And yes, since the Russian state isn't Saudi Arabia (which is now in debt to insane level…) or any western country (ditto), they immediately made deep cuts in spending (as anyone responsible would do when they get less income).

And yes, some defense programs were delayed and put on the backburner. Mostly the future air programs (with priority going to land systems)… which aren't urgent anymore.

Because the F-35 is here.

And air defense and Su-30/35 are more than enough to handle them.

a3921c No.514058


Just think about it for a minute, no-one in it's right mind spend billions on ground systems if they can get bombed by the most bombing happy power block on the planet! And Anti-Air is always the priority for Russia (after nukes), no matter the amount of money available.

If they switched priority away from air dominance systems, it can only mean one thing:

They think that what they have is ok.

3499f7 No.514066


Yes, I think that the Russians are clearly satisfied with the performance of their systems particularly Su-30, Su-35, Kalibr (and Iskander?) in Syria where the Russian contingent has punched well above its weight. The current Flankers are well-matched against all current fighters except F-22 (F-35s are currently too few in number and their performance a question mark and J-20 will take even more years to be considered a threat) and their is no indication of Russia going to war against any peer state in the near future at least and lets face it Russia is not going to, has no need to and is not in the shape to invade Europe.

2116ca No.514076

File: 2c8ac23bc584f0b⋯.jpg (75.58 KB, 620x373, 620:373, how to turn the F-35 into ….jpg)

Why don't we put water tanks in ALL fighter aircraft?

3499f7 No.514077

As I have nothing better to do.

A piece from AIR International regarding Su-57:

"What for years seemed to be the great advantage of Russia’s PAK FA fighter –having a large and solid foreign customer at the design stage – is becoming increasingly doubtful.

The joint Russian-Indian Perspective Multi-role Fighter (PMF) programme based on the Russian PAK FA (commonly referred to in India as the fifth-generation fighter aircraft or FGFA) has been the subject of talks between the two countries since 2001. An intergovernmental agreement signed in October 2007 was followed in December 2010 by a contract for preliminary design of the PMF, dubbed the Type 79L, to be jointly developed by Sukhoi and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited of India. The preliminary design was accepted in June 2013 and the next contract covering construction and evaluation of prototypes was expected to be signed soon after. That has still not happened.

All current Russian official announcements about the Russian-Indian PMF project claim “negotiations with India are in progress”. When AIR International recently asked a senior Russian aircraft industry official about the negotiations, he replied frankly: “Better not ask.” When Russians speak about the problems, they mention discrepancies regarding money and Indian access to the aircraft. A UAC report published in June 2016 stated: “In [respect of] the financial matters, a compromise solution has been reached. In [respect of] allowing Indian pilots [to fly the PAK FA prototypes] important decisions have been made and they are currently being settled with [the Russian] Ministry of Defence.” According to another UAC report from June 2017: “technical

negotiations have been concluded” and “the contract is initialled and is currently undergoing approval procedures by Indian state authorities”.

The Russians always emphasise only that they are ready to give India fifth-generation

technologies. The question is whether they really have such technologies. Indian media quoted an Indian Air Force official saying: “The FGFA’s engine is unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered, India’s work-share too low and the fighter’s price would be exorbitant by the time it enters service.” Remarkably, in HAL’s exhibition hall during the Aero India 2017 trade show in February there was no mention of the PMF, although in 2013 and 2015 HAL displayed a model of the fighter in Indian Air Force markings. HAL is Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.

Nevertheless, negotiations are in progress,which means the deal is not dead yet.

Piotr Butowski"

3499f7 No.514078

Excerpts from an article "US Air Force 2030"

The future of airpower will be multinational and networked. He (US Air Force Chief of Staff General David Goldfein) said: “Our allies are a source of exciting technologies with military applications. We need to strengthen our alliances. We have them; our adversaries do not. Looking at our allies, as airmen, takes on special meaning as we look at our history and the future of sustaining coalitions. As a former air component commander [in US Central Command], I would not turn down any capability, American or coalition, that can contribute to my mission.”

“We will fight together in an age where information sharing is vital to success, and it will be fast.” However, in looking at the aircraft, manned and unmanned, that will be called upon to carry out these operations, Goldfein is less interested in what these will be and more in how they will be linked and integrated: “If we get this right, we are not going to have as many conversations about a particular system, but rather about a family of systems. It is going to be the connective tissue that is important.” In looking at the future of airpower, Goldfein would, “focus on the highway rather than the truck”, which, when the ‘trucks’ are actually aircraft that need to be replaced or modernised to create the force he wants to exist in 2030, suggests the Air Force may look different from that of today in ways other than a one-on-one replacement of aircraft types.

3499f7 No.514080

On PCA (Penetrating Counter Air):

Brigadier General Alex Grynkewich, speaking at a forum on US Air Force air superiority and air combat technology held at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies in Washington on July 10, said: “I eschew the word ‘fighter’.”As the leader of the Air Force’s Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan study, he was responsible for looking at what is needed for the 2030 air force that Goldfein is

aiming to build, and it is not necessarily a sixth-generation fighter. Explaining the concept, Grynkewich said not to think about fighter jet combat: “. . . but a network of capabilities that come

together to achieve the condition of air superiority. This will require the integration of so many different pieces, but if we just think of air superiority as fighter combat, we will not get where we need to go in the future, when, by the late 2020s, highly contested environments will become untenable for our future force structure no matter how much we modernise.”

Grynkewich believes the most efficient way is to disaggregate capabilities rather than have them in one place. For the future, Grynkewich wants to, “think of PCA as a node in a network, not an F-22-like capability or its direct replacement, that can find, fix and, some of the time, complete the kill chain.

However, Colonel Coglitore is concerned about survivability of a PCA capability in a 2030 world, one that may be dominated by long range, potentially highly lethal, air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles: “The right mix of capabilities are what will make something survivable. There are lots of ways to survive. Historically, it was speed. Now it is a lot more complex. It can be speed, altitude or stealth, and EW [electronic warfare] which is a form of stealth.”

3499f7 No.514081


Holmes, though, sees his priority for DEW not as deploying offensive weapons on fighter or special operations aircraft, but rather for airbase defence against increasing missile threats: “I desperately need help protecting my airfields.” Gen Holmes sees DEW as an answer to two increasingly vital questions: “How do we support the bases required to sustain forward deployed airpower, and what can I do to defend my bases at a lower cost per shot?” However, DEWs are coming to US Air Force aircraft. Holmes said: “The challenge is getting the size, weight, cooling and power needed on an airborne platform, but we are making progress. Clouds blocking the wavelength of DEW weapons are also a challenge. We have to figure out how to do it through the atmosphere.”

Colonel Coglitore reminded his audience at the July 10 forum that the bottom line is the

required capability rather than the technology that produces it: “There is no requirement for directed energy. There are requirements for survivability and lethality. We need to see if directed energy can fit into one of those lanes. We are examining that. We are comparing it with other alternatives, costs, logistics and integration.”

On Autonomy:

Using autonomy to adapt the response of automatic systems on board an aircraft – based on the intent and capabilities of the pilot on a moment-to-moment basis – is the goal of James Christenson, portfolio manager for the 711th Performance Wing, with the Air Force Research Laboratory. Speaking in Washington on July 13, Christenson said he foresees the application of autonomy as being an essential part of manned-unmanned teaming: “It sits at the intersection between safety and the ability to enhance performance and interact with the highly complex platforms they are working with.” At the individual aircraft level, autonomy works with, rather than replaces, a pilot, allowing concentration on whatever task is most important at any moment. To do this, the aircraft needs to know the state of the individual pilot, requiring continuous monitoring. Are there things the aircraft can do if the pilot is at less than maximum performance?”

3499f7 No.514082

From a separate article on ISR some F-35 shilling:

Among international users, the Israeli Air Force is on schedule to achieve initial operational capability with its F-35As in December 2017. Its chief of staff, Major General Amir Eshel, who remains on flight status and has gone through F-35A conversion training, has told his US counterparts what Israel is discovering about the F-35’s ISR capabilities. Secretary

of the Air Force Heather Wilson quoted him as saying, after fl ying seven missions in the

F-35A: “This changes everything. There is nothing like it.”

According to Mike Holmes, Eshel called the F-35 game-changing, and said the first time Israeli F-35s flew in country they saw things they had not seen before, and captured data revealed that things were out in the battle space that they did not know about. The first F-35 sorties provided the Israelis – long-standing experts in ISR – with enhanced situational awareness. Holmes considered it a demonstration of how the F-35 provides unparalleled ability in multidomain battle.

One F-35 capability in development, is the ability to pass synthetic aperture radar-generated coordinates from the F-35 automatically to the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System, used by the US military to fi re the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System.”

Currently, ISR aircraft represent 9.9% of the US Air Force inventory, two-thirds of them unmanned – up from 3.2% as recently as 2007– and has some 35,000 personnel assigned to and conducting ISR missions; more people than in the entire Royal Air Force.

Brigadier General Alex Grynkewich, who led the Air Force’s Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan study, speaking at the Mitchell Institute in Washington DC, on July 10, said: “For airpower, the biggest gap is in find and fix capability, rather than the ability to create kinetic effects on targets. Rather than replacing current aircraft, manned or unmanned, with improved versions of themselves, the most efficient approach is to disaggregate capabilities rather than have them in one place.”

Grynkewich thinks that rather than looking at mission-specific platforms, the future will see General Goldfein’s ones and zeros delivered from multiple networked platforms: “We always get criticised about not thinking about families of systems and families of capabilities, and that while we may think about families, we end up building platforms. That is not how we operate in Syria. What matters is the network of capabilities.”

3499f7 No.514083

More F-35 shilling:

By way of example, General Davis (Deputy Commandant of Aviation USMC) described a recent exercise at Beaufort, during which four F-35Bs and four Hornets were pitted against a mixed force of 20 adversaries, comprising F-5N Tigers, F-15C Eagles and F-16C Fighting Falcons: “It was a large force exercise, eight good guys up against 20 very qualified and experienced adversaries. It was a self-escort strike scenario with air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. It went very well for the F-35s and F/A-18s, but not so well for the adversaries. In the debrief we had a brand-new captain stand up – one of the F-35 pilots – who talked about what he thought, what he saw, what they did. I would say his percentage of AMRAAM shots was about perfect, as far as the shots he took and the shots that scored kills. An Air Force Colonel, an F-15 pilot, said it was really cool to have young captains in the gun squadrons citing the Marine as amazing. He is a student in our training squadron! We have a brand-new guy that thinks, operates, feels and has the confidence of a three-year veteran, but he’s right out of training.

fc6116 No.514090

File: f2ba1261c2d534c⋯.png (762.8 KB, 989x569, 989:569, berserk_jewling.png)



So they wasted all that money on a supposed überplane, and now they are speaking about how it will be just one part of a system, and you goyim shouldn't worry about its actual capabilities?

13d404 No.514098


Better than that, the majority of praise isn't about the plane, but about its electronics suite that could be dropped into any old rustbucket as a block upgrade.

3499f7 No.514099


To be fair, the idea of "being part of a system" is a good one. I recall reading that F-22's are supposed to function as mini-AWACS sharing their data with friendlies.

You can imagine how the situational awareness can greatly increase if all friendly units share their data. So I interpret that's what the F-35 praise must be about. Unfortunately an F-35 alone doesn't seem to be a strong fighter: so all bets are on it being in a wolf pack with lots of support. This may be a problem.


Semi-good point; what about the rustbucket's stealth?

a3921c No.514101


>about its electronics suite that could be dropped into any old rustbucket as a block upgrade.

>about its electronics suite that is highly classified and that no-one actually know how it performs especially not presstitutes.

There, fixed it for you.

13d404 No.514104


>what about the rustbucket's stealth?

Any money spent on a stealthy airframe would probably yield better bang-for-buck on ECM today. I'm sure a B-52 would be better protected against AA than an F-35 with the results of a $1.5T ECM program installed.

a9d624 No.514110


>defense budget has been cut twice in the last two years.

It was also astronomically increased like six times since 1990.

Their military budget is bigger than that of USSR, which included a lot more states.


If I could have EODAS on F-20 tigersharks or F-35 flying goatse, it wouldnt even be a competition.

F-20 costs $5.4 million, F-35 costs $310 million and does less. Even transferring over cost of EODAS would still make tigershark at least ten times cheaper.

prices as offered to canada

f03a27 No.514141

File: 68463a5609287f3⋯.jpg (47.93 KB, 578x800, 289:400, 8c8f9e5cb11b906a89ac974f57….jpg)


> vouches for F-20

You must be kidding me, the F-20 is was obsolete, even to the F-16. The F-20 is really only comparable (and superior) to the F-5.

Yes the F-20 would be cheaper, especially if it's not made stealthy, and doesn't get a glass cockpit. But what's the point if it can only carry like 4 air to air missiles and has shorter legs than anything else?

If you instead talked about the F-16XL then I maybe would have agreed.

2116ca No.514154


>it can only carry like 4 air to air missiles

4 medium range missiles underwing and 2 sidewinders on the wingtips

That's still twice the F-35's AMRAAMs in stealth mode.

3499f7 No.514158



"The F-22 does not have Link 16 transmission capability like most other combat aircraft because that system was not designed for stealthy aircraft and its omni-direction emissions could give away the F-22’s presence. As such, the F-22 can currently receive information via Link 16 compatible broadcasts, but it cannot send them. In other words, an F-22 can see what an F-15C sees sensor-wise, but not the other way around.

The Talon HATE pod will basically masquerade as another F-22, with Raptors beaming back information to it for processing and redistribution on MIDS/Link 16 waveforms. This will allow F-15C/Ds to see the F-22’s tactical picture, and other aircraft will be able to as well."

>Semi-good point; what about the rustbucket's stealth?

“The right mix of capabilities are what will make something survivable. There are lots of ways to survive. Historically, it was speed. Now it is a lot more complex. It can be speed, altitude or stealth, and EW which is a form of stealth.”

A Stealthier Rafale?

Posted by Bill Sweetman at 4/5/2010 5:30 AM CDT

Our colleagues at Air & Cosmos report that the French government is funding a demonstration of improved stealth technology for the Dassault Rafale fighter, with a focus on active cancellation techniques. The story itself is not online but is being discussed at the Key Military Forum.

Active cancellation means preventing a radar from detecting a target by firing back a deception signal with the same frequency as the reflection, but precisely one-half wavelength out of phase with it. Result: the returned energy reaching the radar has no frequency and can't be detected.

It's quite as difficult as it sounds. Some reports have suggested that the so called SP-3 or ZSR-62 "radar jamming device" planned in the early days of the B-2 program was an active cancellation system. It did not work and was scrapped in 1987-88. In 2005, Northrop Grumman paid $62 million to settle a False Claims Act case involving the system.

This may not be the first French attempt to implement AC on the Rafale. At the Paris air show in 1997, I interviewed a senior engineer at what was then Dassault Electronique, about the Rafale's Spectra jamming system. He remarked that Spectra used "stealthy jamming modes that not only have a saturating effect, but make the aircraft invisible… There are some very specific techniques to obtain the signature of a real LO aircraft."

"You mean active cancellation?" I asked. The engineer suddenly looked like someone who deeply regretted what he had just said, and declined any further comment. (As Hobbes once put it after pouncing on an unsuspecting Calvin: "We tigers live for moments like that."*)

The fact that a new demonstrator is being contemplated suggests that the technology may not have been up to the job the first time round - but since AC depends on electronics and processing, that picture may have changed. MBDA and Thales, which absorbed Dassault Electronique and is now the prime contractor on Spectra, have since confirmed that they are working on active cancellation for missiles.

The whole Spectra program has been a major venture, including the construction of four new indoor test ranges, including the colossal Solange RCS range discussed in Ares in 2007. That facility will probably play a major role in the new demonstrator program.

3499f7 No.514159

Also this.

A French Way of SEAD?:


a3921c No.514166


>Because it cannot afford overwhelming material superiority, the French use tactics and maneuver to trump material limitations.

This is the french military in a nutshell.

ef296c No.514186

Anyone got the screencap of /k/ommandos breaking down the cost of the F-35 program and debating how many MiG-21's they could get instead?

a9d624 No.514194

File: 02d3d8df0abfaeb⋯.jpg (127.39 KB, 640x414, 320:207, 23998018974_1995464172_z.jpg)


F-20 was superior to F-16, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>4 air to air missiles

Four medium range air to air missiles, two short range air to air missiles, a fucking cannon, and a centerline fuel tank.

F-35 manages four medium air to air missiles. Period. You can swap that for a short range missile and a bomb. Period.

>has shorter legs than anything else?

The F404 engine it uses was 76kN afterburning at the time, giving F-20 a TW ratio of 1.1:1

Over time F404 evolved into F414 of the same dimensions and weight but with non-afterburning thrust of 58kN, giving F-20 a thrust to weight ratio of 0.8 which is enough to give… drum roll….


At mach 1.6, a feat F-35 can't match! This would increase the range significantly, maybe even double it. The same F414 engine is capable of afterburning at 98kN, giving F-20 a TW ratio of 1.5:1 which means fully loaded it can fly vertical to alltitude like a fucking rocket.

Also remember even with LockMart price of $80 million per F-35, I get FIFTEEN tigersharks for one F-35….. and Tigersharks are capable of buddy tank refueling….

bd2ecc No.514196


But can they pull a whopping 4g? Can they bankrupt an Air force through maintenance costs? Do they have the TWO engines the Navy wanted? Is the only thing the F-35 was good for the B model's VSTOL?

a9d624 No.514200


Sadly the outdated rusty F-20 lacks these world-changing capabilities.

Yes. Also there's evidence they cooperated with a foreign company for the lift capability, and actually ignored the foreign company's advice. This is why the B variant has a large lift fan which takes up a ridiculous amount of volume and makes it so fragile it turns like a bomber. It's also why B variant exhaust is like a laser that can cut through deck plating, and special ceramic plates (similar to space shuttle) have to be installed on carriers for F-35B to operate off them.

d5fddd No.514202



What happened to the F-20 was criminal frankly. Northrop was seriously cucked out of delivering a fine product to the point I am surprised they weren't suing left right and centre.

bd2ecc No.514205


No, the F-20 is a bit of a shame. The F-23 bullshit is criminal; why can't we have nice things? As was the Cheyenne, but that was Lockheeb being cucked.

a3921c No.514217

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


What's really weird is that the Swiss didn't get their greasy paws on it (but then the F-20 was basically blanketed with an export ban), because they would have bought it in a heartbeat.

Hell they would probably still do if it was offered with a F414 and a modern suite…

a74b62 No.514219



F-20 failed because of bad salesmanship. It was literally the best combat aircraft in the world for a decade.

But when Northrop wanted to sell it to Europe they got overconfident and sent a sales team containing one retarded tom-clancy-like jingoist who did the following:

>walk into conference room with two dozen representatives of several european countries

>dressed in a windbreaker

>ball cap

>aviator sunglasses

>smoking a cigar

>pose in front of them and say

>"f-20 is the best damn aircraft in the world"

>then walk out

>get drunk on the hotel room minibar

The entire sales pitch took less than 30 seconds. Despite being true, his one sentence doomed the project.

Whereas F-16 sales team did this

>walk into room

>show graphs, technical specs, explain how its good

>promise to build a part of it in customer countries (making jobs)

Guess who sold more jets to Europe.


Key West agreement.

d5fddd No.514231


I like this copypasta but what makes it hialrious is that it is actually true. Northrop aren't able to get enough politicians in their pockets despite making far better aircraft than their competitors

1cbe78 No.514234


>The F-23 bullshit is criminal

From what I can tell its design sacrificed (rightly) low speed maneuverability for better stealth whereas the F-22 did the opposite.

And since what people wanted was a stealth fighter that could kill Su-27 and MiG-29 and any future versions of them in any situation (including close range gun fight) the F-22, with its fancy thrust vectoring, won.


>F-20 was better than F-16

From what I read so far, no. Fewer hardpoints, smaller radar, shorter legs, slightly worse turn rate. So when you say it was better do you mean price, reliability, maintainability?

d5fddd No.514236


YF-23 was faster, had longer range, could carry a larger payload and had a better stealth profile and it had Thrust Vectoring as well

The YF-22 was only slightly more maneuverable but had way more shekels backing it. Hell I still remember the magazines I had from the 80's and early 90's and everyone's bet was on the YF-23 since it was winning every competition thrown at it need to look up the loft sometime and see if I still have them How the YF-22 won really perplexed everyone at the time till they noticed that it wasn't Generals backing it but Senators.

2116ca No.514243


>F-20 was superior to F-16

Even if that was the case the F-20 was bound by design on the second generation while the F-16 was a revolutionary relaxed stability design to the core. There was only this good the Tigershark could get with future upgrades.

2116ca No.514245


>Also there's evidence they cooperated with a foreign company for the lift capability, and actually ignored the foreign company's advice.

It's no secret that lockheed cooperated with Yakovlev after the Yak-141.

2116ca No.514247


Why the fuck did not McDonnel/Northrop use thrust vectoring too? I bet it would beat YF-22 in subsonic maneuverability too if it did.

2116ca No.514250


>slightly worse turn rate.

F-16 had overall kinematic advantages despite F-20's favorable t/w, but I think instantaneous turn rate was in favour of the F-20.

a74b62 No.514252


Chronology is key.

F-16 and F-15 are from 1976

Up until 1981 the F-16 Block 1, 5 and 10 still had difficulty with simply flying or controlling the aircraft. In 1981 introduced was the block 15, which solved the control problems and added two extra pylons (which you're talking about), then in 1987 an engine was installed which didn't stall out and try to kill the pilots. It's at this point (1987) that F-16 reached parity to the F-20. Arguably F-16C Block 25 in 1986 gave F-16 superiority in many avionics areas, but I don't consider this a platform advantage because software problems created bugs for the F-16C for five years thereafter.

Similarly F-15A/B/C were inferior to F-20 in many roles. Later F-15C was upgraded in radar which made it superior, but this was the late 80s. Around this time (1986) the F-15E entered service, and finally provided the F-15 the same ground strike ability as F-20.

F-5E is from 1975

F-20 is from 1982

The ten years from 1975 to 1985, the F-5E absolutely turbofucked the F-15 and F-16 in every top gun engagement. From 1974 to 1978 F-15 and F-16 carrying BVR sparrows would go toe to toe with F-5E carrying short range sidewinders. In 9/10 engagement the F-5E was able to close to visual range and force at least mutual exchange ratio. So even in "BVR" the F-5E dominated 1975 until…. well really until the introduction of the AMRAAM in 1991.

F-20 is basically F-5E re-engined to hold a single engine, with the ability to use medium range missiles. It provided a mix of interception, strike, and dominance that many fighters came close to but couldn't quite reach for quite awhile.

tl;dr I think your problem is you're comparing 1975 F-20 with 1985+ other jets.

a74b62 No.514254


F-20 has relaxed static ability. In fact F-20 had it back when it was known as neutral speed stability, it basically pioneered the concept…

3499f7 No.514281


Why was the YF_22 selected over YF-23?


1."…long-overdue consideration of Northrop's dismal track record of test fraud, contract suspension and fines"

2. "…a competition needs to consider the PR value of flight test events. Lockheed understood this and did high AOA and shot missiles and pulled 9Gs. All single point, benign condition events but they left an impression".

3499f7 No.514282

An Interesting excerpt from Combat Aircraft's Aggressors Supplement:

"F-22 pilots in particular raised concerns about flying against each other on a daily basis, the old trap of the early 1970s. Despite two Raptor wings having a resident aggressor T-38 Talon squadron to ‘fight’ against, they regularly fly against fellow Raptors that act as enemy Red Air. Former Air Combat Command boss Gen Herbert ‘Hawk’ Carlisle said in 2016 that pitting fifth-generation F-22s and F-35s against each other amounts to ‘zero training and almost negative training’. He added: ‘generating our own adversary from fifth generation is counter- productive.’ To challenge the crews, former ‘Red Eagles’ pilot Carlisle said (before he retired) that F-22 and F-35 pilots needed to train against an eff ective aggressor force that outnumbered them by a factor of 3:1 or 4:1.

While the T-38 aggressors embedded alongside F-22 squadrons off er those numbers, the only real advantage the Talon pilot has is a small visual signature. F-22 pilots need the opportunity to go up against a radar-equipped adversary and for the Red Air to be able to hold its own in the visual fight. What ACC needs is an effective, resident aggressor squadron at each of its fifth-generation bases."

850980 No.514316


Your timeline is a little off, F-16s didn't get Sparrows until '88-89. These early models also lacked Maverick or Paveway compatibility, which the F-20 had from the start.

a74b62 No.514455


Eh I just know a composite F20 with the F414 engine has a TW ratio above 1.5 loaded.

Its perfect for tiny rich countries like Kuwait, Singapore or Taiwan, where time-to-altitude is literally the most important stat.

a3921c No.514459

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


>Its perfect for tiny rich countries like Kuwait, Singapore or Taiwan.


Given that most Swiss underground installation were meant for the F5, it would even fit in the bottom valley bunkers (unlike the F-18).

f3ce5c No.514556

Remember back when aero threads weren't all about bashing the F-35? Neither do I.

b4fe2f No.514561


but it isnt aero thread, this thread was about bashing f-35 from the start, it just got slightly deleyed.

3499f7 No.514571


The now cancelled Northrop proposal for T-X featured extensive use of composites and a non-afterburning F404.


dedee8 No.514580


So basically it's an aeronautics general thread that just got derailed before it even started.

b4fe2f No.514582


no its opposite, its f-35 bashing thread that got derailed into general aeronautics

1e1c0a No.514616

If anyone cares today's local TV addressed the issue of the predominantly rookie turkish pilots after the coup and aired concerns stated by Air Force flying officers over the increased risk for accidents suring virtual air combat.

Since the F-20 became the thread's subject, I feel obliged to point out that the F-5 is almost indisputably the most successful western combat aircraft.

>more cost effective than the freaking MiG-21

>more maneuverable than almost every fighter of its era, much more agile than the F-4 at less than half the purchase and maintenance cost

>one of the most, if not THE most, produced and most exported western jet fighter

>predecessor to the first supersonic and one of the most produced jet trainer aircrafts

>served as the baseline for some of the most advanced aircraft of they era more than two generations ahead of its conception (F-20, YF-17, F/A-18, X-29) with Super Hornet still being one of the most advanced combat aircraft in service for the next couple of decades

>unlike most fighter (((taxmoney sinkholes))), with OP's subject being the epitome, was almost entirely privately founded and still routinely outperformed and outlived them whether directly or by derivative proxy

Only the MiG-21 and Mirage III come close to its overall success and they (and their latest successors like the MiG-31 and Mirage 2000) are now officially phased out of service.

2aeda2 No.514760





82ae40 No.516441

Can the F-35 be salvaged?

All of that wasted money…like tears in the rain.

82ae40 No.516445

Can the F-35 be salvaged?

All of that wasted money…like tears in the rain.

590a8a No.520535


d5fddd No.522016

File: 1cff444ed1a68c9⋯.jpg (176.2 KB, 1024x576, 16:9, 62202267_p2_master1200.jpg)


Only if we use the knowledge gained from it to make a VTOL Hetzer.

c7ad84 No.522041


because it is. it's a tech demonstrator. and it looks very competent, is impressive. the japs could spin up the most modern airforce in their hemisphere if treaty allows them to. i hope so, be neat to watch.

c7ad84 No.522042

File: 248b011e1426235⋯.png (228.93 KB, 400x400, 1:1, ClipboardImage.png)


welcome to kike globalism, where the moneys made up and the debt doesn't matter.

69bba7 No.522043


There are several things that can be done, but this late in the game I wouldn't do anything drastic.

F-35A/C 95% Commonality

C - Stealth is super important, internal reinforcing (tougher airframe) and hook for carrier, anti corrosion measures.

A - C with de-emphasised stealth, perhaps even removed entirely on a few hundred which will be used for strike duties. No carrier-related features.

Well stabilized 30mm cannon is a must on the A variant, the caliber is more important than the rate or fire or anything along those lines. Think of the cannon as a type of cluster bomb, where each little bomblet is fired one by one, and can be aimed instead of spreading out randomly. This is important for killing enemy light armor, instead of having to drop a SDB on each enemy jeep. Push for as big a chain gun or autocannon as possible, even 50mm would be quite good.

F-35B - 60% Commonality with other two

Remove all stealth features. Dumping the stealth features doesn't hurt its primary purpose, which is supporting Marines at a relatively low altitude. It should not be doing SEAD from high altitude, so stealth is unnecessary. This helps it shed maybe a sixth of the total dry mass, including the internal bays. Very important because takeoff weight is fucking it in the ass. Install PETA thrusters instead of the crappy fan to lower even more weight, slim down the profile a bit, open up more space for a gun because it's as necessary as on the A.

241318 No.522050


>PETA thrusters


69bba7 No.522069


Basically engines with no moving parts, with a thrust to weight ratio over 10, and engineered so finely that they can be load bearing structural elements of the aircraft, like that giant milled aluminum frame in A-6 intruder that lets it carry all those heavy bombs. This means they bring no additional weight, and in fact reduce it.

Only downside is that they're fuel hogs, consume five times as much fuel as a normal jet engine. I figure since they're operated only when the F-35B is landing or taking off it doesn't really matter. The weight savings they bring are so huge that the extra fuel cost for the 15 minutes it takes to land or take off are geometrically less than the fuel saved by lower weight of airframe ←– opinion, no calculations done.

They were a research program by Boeing. I know about them because I fucked a lady who worked as a lawyer on the project back what when I used to run a mini golf franchise in Manitoba, since I have a bunch of model airplanes the woman and I got to talking in between her crying about her husband. Anyway that's a long story that ends not too nice, point being these amazing things got shelved because "hurr durr leafs dont kno nothin" attitude of the CEO.

69bba7 No.522071

Disclaimer: This was a few years ago, I only remember because it sounded like PETA the People Eating Tasty Animals organization. I don't know what it stands for, other than she also called them "thrusters" like on a rocket.

30d3d7 No.522250

69bba7 No.522348


That sounds bout right.

a864f6 No.522351

What you fuckers dont know is that the f35 is actually a transformer literally like the movie. It will turn into a giant mecha and literally throw missiles at other fighter jets.

c70e1e No.522405


Keep the monster engine for the B now that it is funded. Put the twin engines of the Super Hornet in the A - C, use the freed space to pack more fuel for giving it a decent range (maybe add a central bomb bay if doable cheaply).

Just by doing that you should fix 70% of the real big problems, you increase the range on only internal fuel which it's gonna if they don't want to take off from within enemy Air Defense nets with Russia exporting SA-20 everywhere, you double it's survivability (twin engine typically means at least one still works), you add quite a bit of trust (20%) with the latest version of the F414, etc…

And if you can make an internal central bay well it's suddenly quite a decent plane…

06b499 No.522462


No anon, I don't think a transformer throwing paperwork around is a legal way to wage war, I think that might constitute as a crime against humnity.

335109 No.522529

File: 54c3561d40cd45a⋯.png (1.27 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, ClipboardImage.png)


That was an F-22. How are the anti-Nork Gundams coming by the way?

788b44 No.522549

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


I can believe this solely on the ground of how retardedly much dead weight would an airplane with retractable humanoid parts would carry.

55bdd7 No.522550


For how much the thing has cost I would bloody hope it turns into a mecha.

788b44 No.522554


Would also explain its performance.

bfcece No.522570

From the moment I saw that stupid plane I knew it was shit.

69bba7 No.522581


Hah I was going to say exactly that, but I didn't want to do too many changes.

With sales and deliveries going out, it would cost a fuckton to change the airframe to a 2 engine one.

0994cf No.522583

Isn't the f22 more superior to it anyways?

788b44 No.522598


> it would cost a fuckton to change the airframe to a 2 engine one.

What is a fuckton compared to $1.6 trillion?

69bba7 No.522606


Redoing the airframe means redoing the stealth shaping, and the tooling to build it. It would basically be a new aircraft, with cost upward of 1 trillion as well.

So you'd end up paying 2.6 trillion.

A minimal change like I said would only cost 130 billion at most, because its removing stuff not adding it or making changes.

69bba7 No.522607

I'm not saying France is wrong, a twin engine C and A with the extra wing area from the C are probably the best way to do this airplane.

6ee754 No.522634

File: 72dc852b9c7fac6⋯.gif (906.25 KB, 500x349, 500:349, Lulz.gif)



>1.6 trillion for inferior product

>another 1.6 trillion to unfuck it

It will never stop being hilarious

69bba7 No.522647


At least they have aircraft.

You're struggling to produce a propeller COIN aircraft and have to buy the engine from Canada.

6ee754 No.522653


>comparing first world superpower with third world nepotism infested banana republic.

Leafy as always.



6ee754 No.522654



Meant for>>522647

b95c49 No.522655

File: 6e26a39fb0054a7⋯.jpg (458.91 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, Su-47.jpg)

File: 820b34112b233ff⋯.jpg (482.19 KB, 2474x1971, 2474:1971, X-29.jpg)

Can't we all just agree that the best fighter jets were already made decades ago and that humans are the ones lacking and lagging?

f91ad2 No.522661


Agree, back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, hell, even in the 40's (when the Luftwaffe basically showed their air superiority), and I'd say 80's as well, when aerospace companies were at an all time high in their creativity, unlike now where they design for the money.

788b44 No.522668


tbh I did not particularly like the Berkut and thought F-16 would be a better choice than F-5 for the FSW platform.

Not making ASF-14, F-15S(E)MT and F-23 were the US' biggest mistakes.

On a positive note Sukhoi claims that they are not done with the Su-47 and that they have Putin's approval to further push it into something more than a technology demonstrator.

69bba7 No.522679

File: c01ecbcca473636⋯.jpg (278.63 KB, 780x388, 195:97, 4912132939_1f9babfeab_o.jpg)


>lagrange 1 point refueling station: 5 billion

>lagrange 2 shipyard: 100 billion

>permanent lunar base with 100 crew: 200 billion

>lunar orbital elevator: 1.8 billion

>77 lunar elevators: 138 billion

>lunar orbital ring: 700 billion

>total: 1.2 trillion




I would love to see a modernized F-20 tigershark with FSW and a pilot literally fed coke and meth intravenously so he doesn't die immediately.

788b44 No.522793


>a modernized F-20 tigershark with FSW

That's literally the X-29.

6ee754 No.522794


My point exactly my maple slurping friend.

For that much money,USA could have dominated entire Low Earth Orbit for fucks sake.

Just imagine all other cool shit we could have had with 1.6 trillion.

788b44 No.522798


>Just imagine all other cool shit we could have had with 1.6 trillion.

At least 400 thousand modernized MiG-21s for a start.

1f567f No.522801

File: 61ea27ba758b343⋯.gif (1.74 MB, 612x639, 68:71, megumin_exp5.gif)


And I remember that a Canuck once posted a recipe for a ballistic missile that was around $1000. A steel tube with a guidance system, rocket fuel and some explosives. Now, if I didn't mess up the long and short scale, then you could buy 160 000 000 such missiles. If they all deliver only about 10kg of explosives, then we are speaking about a volley of 1 600 000 tons. Make it 400 and now you can gift 64 000 000 tons of pure love to a country. I'm too lazy to calculate the TNT equivalent and compare it to nuclear weapons, but it sounds like a lot.

6ee754 No.522804

File: aeabef7865c0498⋯.jpg (80.13 KB, 413x395, 413:395, lold.jpg)


>having more planes than enemy has AA missiles

Man,that thread was pure gold

33b442 No.522812

2c85aa No.522820


>Give each pilot a carbine or SMG

>When they get shotdown they become an airborne invasion force.

33b442 No.522821


This should be a vidya tbh. :^)

d5fddd No.522828


It was a valid tactic in Red Alert with Yak spam. Overwhelm Allied Flak with Yaks and those that were shot down would often drop riflemen who would proceed to finish off what was left of the base

69bba7 No.522842


We could move all of humanity onto an orbital ring around the moon.

1.6 trillion could make us a space faring species.

69bba7 No.522843


Oh and on top of this

>>lagrange 1 point refueling station: 5 billion

>>lagrange 2 shipyard: 100 billion

>>permanent lunar base with 100 crew: 200 billion

>>lunar orbital elevator: 1.8 billion

>>77 lunar elevators: 138 billion

>>lunar orbital ring: 700 billion

>>total: 1.2 trillion



Fusion power costs 20 billion for an experimental reactor, and 50 billion for a prototype reactor, and 1.2 billion for the first production scale reactor.


1df4bf No.522844

File: a0988c38798745e⋯.jpeg (69.84 KB, 334x250, 167:125, jet_killer.jpeg)

File: 64895f60dffaa0c⋯.jpg (15.08 KB, 268x300, 67:75, arisaka jet killer.jpg)


>a gazillion dollars to make prototypes

>hundreds of million of dollars per unit

>kikes squeeze every penny out of you

>no functionality besides fighting other jets

>million dollar electronics for fighting other jets but a iphone app could do the same thing

>millions of dollars each for flying tubes of explosives

It's going to be funny when all of your shitty overcomplicated toys get shot down with some good old machine guns with iron sights. Shit, even Arisaka rifles can shoot down jets

788b44 No.522863




The funniest part is that this was pretty much the PLAF's main doctrine up to the 2000s. Up to the mid 2010's, when Putin ordered the urgent expansion of the Russian Airforce inventory with 300-400 new combat planes (mostly Su-30s) and China put its stock J-8 (MADE IN CHINA MiG-21s) out of service, the later had numerically the second largest airfleet in the world, due to its 550+ MiG-21/J-8s, that's not even counting the even more dated fleet of Q-5 Fantans (quasi-modernized MiG-19s) for comparison the entire combat aircraft fleet of Russia at that point was 700-800 combat aircraft total.

788b44 No.522868


C&C games for some reason really hate aircraft, the MiGs were almost completely useless in Red Alert.

8c5298 No.522870


Seems pretty realistic to me. Each plane has a tiny payload that doesn't do much, they're all expensive naturally, and it's piss easy to take down.

Daily reminder that the single reason modern day aircraft seeing any significant use is because it's only used against sandniggers that lack AAA utterly.

788b44 No.522872


>and it's piss easy to take down

We are not in WW2. There's a good reason combat aircraft are extensively used despite of being fuck-expensive, incapable of territorial occupation, fuel devouring and dependent to fuckhuge airfields that make them logistical nightmares. Even disregarding their obvious mobility advantages, they have the highest kill/death ratio per individual combatant with possible exception of future drone pilots if they can be considered combatants in the first place.

959abc No.522874


>We are not in WW2.

Disregard that regarding Red Alert though.

8c5298 No.522876


And the reason they have high "KD" is because they are used against people who cannot fight back. If you attempted to use these airplanes against a nation with developed military, you'd lose half the aircraft fielded for the first mission and never use them again except for occasional harrassment.

959abc No.522883


Anti-air defenses are only reliable against helicopters and older slow moving aircraft. Anti-air networks that do not implement fighters are at best deterrence against air-raids and ironically aircraft are the best counter to air defenses. Iraq was nearly saturated with ground based air defenses yet they could not even defend their own aircraft from being chased down and only the MiG-25 caused some damage against fixed wing aircraft that did not dive head-on on fortified positions like the A-10 and the Harrier. Even with its extreme unreliability the AGM-88 managed to essentially cripple all early warning network and anti-air network with its mere presence.

The S-300/400 series and maybe the upgraded Patriots are the only platforms that can pose a significant threat to modern combat planes without fortifying a fixed point in the map and like all SAMs it still has an overwhelming kinematic disadvantage against AtG armed aircraft of its era.

69bba7 No.522886


>There's a good reason combat aircraft are extensively used

And that reason is we've not went up against anyone with a solid IADS or ODS since c. 1955.

There's a 19 year generation for active duty servicemembers, that means:

- Pilots who joined in ~1936, served in WWII, were generals and such during the Vietnam war, when we faced IADS/ODS.

- Pilots who joined in ~1955 did not see much IADS/ODS, they know some tactics, and know it's a dangerous job.

- These pilots were replaced in 1974, by pilots that have no idea what fighting IADS/ODS ready opponents is like.

- And THESE were replaced by a new generation of pilots joining in 1993 that had no idea that it was possible to counter an air attack. This is why the military informed Bill Clinton that they could utterly destroy Serbian military power from the air. The closest we came to an enemy that has any idea what they were doing is Serbia. They might not have a lot of air defense, but even so, half a million cruise missile and aircraft sorties had almost no effect on their military. And due to hush-up procedure, we learned absolutely nothing from that war.

- The current generation of pilots that joined in 2012 can't even imagine why someone might shoot at them, that's why they think the F-35 is a cool jet. We don't know for sure what would happen if we faced someone that has 400-500 long range missile trucks and 2000-3000 short range missile trucks. The pilots are probably going to get slaughtered.

I seriously hope they aren't fatally disillusioned by the time next generation comes along, in 2031.

1df4bf No.522888


>figure out where your bullets will go

>fire so they all hit the jet

Iraqis are just retarded and cannot do math

959abc No.522893


>invented civilization

>had the only culture on the planet Greeks were genuinely admiring and jealous of

>can't figure simple ballistic algorithms at the brink of the 21st century

Trips confirm the tragedy of what islamization and miscegenation with arabs can do to a people.

69bba7 No.522897


The original people of the middle east were exterminated and replaced by fucking Arabs, modern day Iraqi has nothing to do with a 200BC Persian.

Roll back to before Mohammed was born and North Africa was full of brown haired Romans and red haired Celts. Anatolia was full of brown and blonde haired Greeks and Varangians. Persians were dark haired, but they weren't dark skinned.

959abc No.522900


>The original people of the middle east were exterminated and replaced by fucking Arabs, modern day Iraqi has nothing to do with a 200BC Persian.

Met some Iraqis IRL and they were significantly more civilized and surprisingly good with tinkering stuff than every other mudslime I was unfortunate enough to meet, maybe it was just the Shia instead of Sunni thing, but it gave me the impression that some genes might still persist.

1df4bf No.522904


>surprisingly good with tinkering stuff

This comes from years of homemade bomb manufacturing

7b0d67 No.522932

File: 2955850c77b80b6⋯.jpg (158.95 KB, 692x960, 173:240, hellodarknesmyoldfriend.jpg)




>not ordering your 400K+ MiG-21 armada to make low supersonic flight over enemy country

>not rupturing eardrums and just about every other orifice of enemy soldiers and civies with sonic boom

>not destroying enemy industrial capacity and infrastructure with sheer shockwave alone

<Geneva convection on suicide watch


>tfw F-35 is the sole reason we're not shitposting trough time and space itself right now

2538e3 No.522935



>dealing with 1500-3000 ms ping

no thanks

959abc No.522942


Would not F-104s be better for it?

0994cf No.522973

How well would stealth interceptors perform as cruise missile platforms?

69bba7 No.523004

File: ec58b3c6788d696⋯.png (58.41 KB, 900x900, 1:1, h5EDC.png)



The best part is the ring around the moon can hold humanity, but we don't have to invite everyone.

We could literally leave the subhumans on earth and virus bomb it after everyone is safe on the ring.


Only if you want to crash into the ground.

959abc No.523085

f1f69b No.523092

File: 8c824ca5958aead⋯.jpg (55.79 KB, 540x960, 9:16, 1234567889.jpg)


Sure thing,if you want added Scorched Earth effect.


Truly the worst timeline to be alive

0994cf No.523115


Why don't they develop cruise missile bunker busters?

959abc No.523118


Maybe the warhead is too big? Maybe it's not cost effective yet since it's only used on goatfuckers digging holes in the sand and not actual bunkers? dunno.

c70e1e No.523122


>both the original JASSM and the JASSM-ER are several inches too long to be carried in the internal weapons bay of the F-35 Lightning II

D-Don't worry the F-35 is a great plane…

034a86 No.523124

plane is much more cheaper now

and its pretty much F-22 evolved into versatile plane capable of many tasks

wins hands down specs wise compared to nearly everything to all fighters

compared, Sukhoi Su-57 will probably better in cost and maneuverability

69bba7 No.523132


>wins hands down specs wise compared to nearly everything to all fighters

Eh no, not really. It's radar is anemic, it's TW is low, can't supercruise, isn't really maneuverable…

b4fe2f No.523136


>plane is much more cheaper now


also learn's to spell you ofs nigger

a931d1 No.523140


Why US will never go into Iran, they have something resembling a competent AA Defense.

f140ab No.523200









f70aed No.523219


Where's the spelling mistake you subhuman polack?

c70e1e No.523247

File: 3ac4a718d3d17aa⋯.jpg (276.49 KB, 634x606, 317:303, Russian navigable waterway….jpg)


You underestimate the lack of realism of US military and policy planners.

Hell you have a core group at the top of the US military that still think it's a good idea to strike Russian forces in Syria…

Here is a good example:


>Ralph Peters, ex-US Army Colonel, senior military analyst at Fox News

>voice of the republican neo-cons that are very much part of the Trump admin…

>we have to win rapidly and decisively — and keep it within Syria.

>Our military is war-gaming contingencies to ensure that, should the Russians fire on us, we’ll be prepared. We cannot let the Russians dictate where we fly and who we can protect. We’ve gone out of our way to avoid confrontations with Putin’s war criminals, but there’s a limit. And we may be about to reach it.

Ok, that's what those people think.

They think they can bomb the Russian army in Syria… and Russia won't flatten all the US bases in the middle-east in retaliation?

I mean that's the MINIMAL response you can except right? You bomb their airbase they bomb the airbases you used for it. Tit for tat. Right?

That's what keeping it confined means.

That means Russia turning to ash all the US military installation in the gulf… as they have extensively demonstrated they can do in Syria by lobbing cruise missile from Iranian airspace (instead of the black sea or Armenia's). Just has they have demonstrated with their submarines and their LIGHTEST ships that do carry the same missiles as heavier ones, they can have the Caspian Flotilla (8 ships with 8x Kaliber = 64 missile per strike… And that's just assuming they won't use those corvettes for what they were designed IE navigate on Russian waterways, meaning all the corvettes with those missiles of the Russian Navy can go from their bases in the White Sea/Black Sea/Baltic Sea to the Caspian Sea simply by moving INSIDE Russia), fuck up all the US bases in the Persian gulf safely hiding behind Iran and being competently out of reach, because the US Navy is already skittish (in peace time) at the idea of coming to the Persian gulf en masse, because of the amount of AShM not liking US ships in the area…

Because in that specific theater their new (that aren't that new) gen cruise missiles missiles gives Russia STAND-OFF SUPERIORITY.

As in they can bomb the US assets fairly safely and easily, and the US can't without tremendous efforts…

Yet it's a good idea to attack them on that theater and keep it there???

Everywhere else, that's not the case and the US does enjoy significantly bigger stand-off capabilities than Russia.

But at that specific place, because of the geography and local powers it's the complete opposite!

And Russia makes a showcase of those new missiles TO REMIND US PLANNERS OF THAT FACT. Not to bomb terrorists in Syria…

To bomb terrorists in Syria they use soviet made dumb bomb with close expiration dates they literally don't know what to do with.

Yet those guys don't get a clue. I take Peters but I can go on and quote half a dozen of US top ex-generals (ex-SACEURs Gen. Breedlove and Clark, etc… ).

That's the type of guys on top of the US military… don't except smart moves.

e9e4e1 No.523257


It's not "basically okay" when you consider it can carry less armaments, at less speed and less protection than any of the jets it's trying to replace.

It can't replace the Warthog because it's made out of tissue paper and doesn't have half the capacity.

It can't replace the Eagles or Hornets because it's either not as fast or as fast at 100x the price and, again, reduced armament and protective equipment.

That's not to mention that it has a superfluous "VTOL" function that…literally doesn't work, burns fuel like a mo-fo, has horrendous internals and, like you said, requires an internet connection to fly.

The biggest problem is that this flying potato cost the US upwards of a trillion dollars and is probably is probably never going to see a day of practical use for as long as it exists.

The only reason the F-35 exists is congressional corruption. Literally, The. Only. Fucking. Reason. is that a few congressmen are making major bank on it so they keep pushing it and since the broader public doesn't actually know anything about it or give a shit, nobody's doing anything to stop them because there's no points or votes in it.

Basically, the F-35 exists because congress is broken.

e9e4e1 No.523258


Also, since when the fuck did national flags become standard? Any way to turn that shit off?

bf0a3b No.523264


of all the problems with it, using it in an a10 role is the most hilariously retarded



e9e4e1 No.523268


I know, right? Who in the retarded bum-fuck decided that was a good idea? When I heard it first I had to sit down on my floor and process the information while staring at a wall.

Some people are inhumanly stupid.

6f655e No.523282

File: 8dd4cd2c6f2b4e4⋯.jpg (44.7 KB, 2048x1360, 128:85, HondaJet-engine-nacelle-01.jpg)

Honda makes jet engines now. I have a feeling they would make a sweet military plane.

959abc No.523295


The real question is: where did you get that awesome Imperial Japanese flag.

959abc No.523298

File: 10ea9c212079f03⋯.jpg (39.26 KB, 536x366, 268:183, Untitled.jpg)



Gotcha covered, third greatest ally.

bf0a3b No.523314

File: 2b930c23c38510e⋯.jpg (69.44 KB, 565x555, 113:111, with_jews.jpg)


>Who in the retarded bum-fuck decided that was a good idea?


all non flags are illiterate special forces or JIDF as far as I'm concerned

de74a4 No.523318


noflags should be disregarded same as Canadians in all honesty

bf0a3b No.523327

File: 74742476beb1727⋯.jpg (442.49 KB, 2286x1866, 381:311, abbe-jean-jacques-huber-17….jpg)


I would bet that spergook/kraut is now either leafposting or noflagging. or spamming and pretending to be norwegian on other boards

840570 No.523801

File: 0f5c2c12790c8b4⋯.jpg (20.49 KB, 550x170, 55:17, X-35-to-F-35.jpg)

File: 55ce405f744bcae⋯.jpg (17.03 KB, 550x135, 110:27, Boeings-X-32-Chuckler-or-M….jpg)

Which of these would've been the best option?

d5fddd No.523804


The Boeing one cause unlike Lockheeb they would actually deliver

7e2aac No.523810


Out of X-35:

C 160 looks the most agile.

C 180A/B looks the stealthiest with the exception of the vertical tailfin.

C 180C looks the most awkwardly conventional, other than the air intakes, can't grasp how it's supposed to be stealthy.

Personally would go for combination of C 160 with C 180A, with canted double verticals for sure.


AVX-70 is the only one that does not look too awkward but it's a space shuttle not a combat plane.

Similarly with 988-300, but looks like something transitional between a space shuttle and fighter.

988-371 is the only one that looks realistically appropriate for a fighter.

22f218 No.523811

I have always wondered what Lockheed Martin's motto is?

d5fddd No.523813


Jew you once, shame on us

Jew you twice, shame on you

44df61 No.523830


Lockheed "Deal paper planes, cash paper money" Martin

1b8a84 No.523848


If the vertical tailfin is composite and has no internal metal parts, it's radar transparent. That's why the whole tail surface turns on some modern fighters. That's a good way to make canards… of course Eurofags managed to make the entire canard out of titanium and aluminum so it defeats the whole point…


Fraud, fits the bill? Certified by a Jew, don't mind the mildew? Happiness is star shaped? Smell the money, feel the theft? By the children of Abraham, this sure ain't a scam? Welcome to the rape of your life? Doo doo from the joo joo? Everyone should believe in stealth? We're the airborne Jews, and we forgot a few screws?


"You get the trash, we get the cash" would be better.

b15853 No.523878


>By the children of Abraham, this sure ain't a scam?

You funny guy, I'll rake you last.

7df2d8 No.524171


> Eurofags managed to make the entire canard out of titanium and aluminum

>create aircraft with S-shaped air intakes and have its surfaced made 85% by non metals namely for radar signature reduction

>give it full metal canards

But why?

c253ce No.528257


>Does the F-35 JSF really suck?


c253ce No.528258


something that does everything mediocre does everything

425c0c No.529034

File: 63e472e2117a521⋯.png (277.41 KB, 1142x1092, 571:546, Screenshot-2017-11-12 Popp….png)

Wonder how much of this goes to Lockheeb?


3591a3 No.529179

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.



>Version 988-313A.

>Play music from vid related on a non stop loop in the cockpit as soon as the engines start.

>Train all aircrew to communicate only in passionate Japanese shouting.

I'm sorry, but we were told that Trump would make anime real.

6004eb No.529189

File: 4022bd84020fe8f⋯.png (11.05 KB, 320x341, 320:341, top sekrit dokumints do no….png)



What the fuck? I thought those guys make motorcycles along with Kawasaki. Also they make music instruments for some reason.

Is there anything they don't do?


The AVX-70 is adorable

93afbb No.529209


They started out making rickshaws, then moved to bicycles, then motorcycles, then cars, then trucks, then trains, then boats, now airplanes. In another generation they'll be making spaceships. It's called capitalism Poland, it's not the best economic system, it's the only economic system. Everything else is magical thinking.

ba79cc No.529219




Honda made parts for Nakajima engines as far as WWII (including german inspired jet engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishikawajima_Ne-20).

They're still the main subcontractor for Fuji Heavy Industries (which builds all the helicopters of Japanese military and a shit load of Boeing parts).

It's a cute bed time story, but if anything Honda has always been wasted doing bikes and whatnot (post-war reconversion).

cd9744 No.529488

File: 8ef2b4adba574cb⋯.jpg (160.78 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, Messerschmitt_Me_262A_at_t….jpg)

File: 23d95dd553c4fa0⋯.jpg (48.75 KB, 500x333, 500:333, Schwerer-Gustav - Copy.jpg)

File: 23d95dd553c4fa0⋯.jpg (48.75 KB, 500x333, 500:333, Schwerer-Gustav.jpg)

File: be0a298fe2cbb74⋯.jpg (23 KB, 640x480, 4:3, Silverbird.jpg)


>Everything else is magical thinking.


425c0c No.529790

93afbb No.529814


>implying germany was communist

896fbc No.529835


>my variety of authoritarian socialism is completely different to all the other varieties of authoritarian socialism

e11078 No.529836


>Japan To Buy Ballistic Missile Interceptors, F-35s From USA

>doesnt actually buy anything

lol crazy Lügenpresse

e11078 No.529838


germany was collectivist, but still capitalist, dumbo. the state didnt own everything like in jewish socialism.

93afbb No.529842


Germany was basically capitalism that isn't internationalist (encouraged only one nationality within borders). Government didn't own corporations per se, it had more private ownership than any western country today.

24e816 No.529961


>ballistic missile interceptor


Welp, they might outrun it but at least they won't fight back.

425c0c No.529973



Surprised nobody has mentioned the Heeb-35 being a pedofighter yet.

7d0bac No.530009


>I don't understand what Prussian Socialism is

>I'm a retard that expects to be taken seriously with my reddit tier understanding of history and ideologies

You should be deeply ashamed of your self. Go read a book.

7d0ee2 No.530066

Does the Air Force even have a mission? They've been struggling to find one ever since the ICBM. They don't want to do ground support; all they want to do is carpet bomb shit

779f42 No.530118

File: 15ea8ac39667556⋯.jpg (240.42 KB, 1000x1333, 1000:1333, trudeau SOON.jpg)


>Does the Air Force even have a mission?

They'll soon have. Nothing more motivational than kebab neighbours.

425c0c No.530132

File: c2e8e7963cd56f9⋯.jpg (474.02 KB, 1029x1200, 343:400, oyvey.jpg)


The Chair Force mission is to drain tax dollars anon :^)

59a79d No.533844

File: 94498be8d1db29f⋯.jpg (165.98 KB, 1200x798, 200:133, DQP0_tYVwAA3DGG.jpg)

File: 744c5efa1b45a1f⋯.jpg (13.33 KB, 316x197, 316:197, th.jpg)

File: 20b62672e653a57⋯.jpg (90.86 KB, 736x520, 92:65, f1b459614d32a3609a712c59db….jpg)

File: 6a4121e3338c0c6⋯.jpg (32.75 KB, 620x349, 620:349, DQNfNfNU8AAdexu.jpg)

F-35 panel falls off in flight.


Not only is it falling apart, which is bad enough.

But a panel worth billions of dollars in technology research and hundreds of billions to enemy nations like China, has just fallen through a roof into some Japanese schoolgirls bedroom.

7257e5 No.533848

File: 9de4358d2ea55e5⋯.jpg (23.41 KB, 400x406, 200:203, zenigahahahahahahahahahaha….jpg)

cb2e3a No.533920

File: 959f0b7920b3091⋯.jpg (131.93 KB, 1000x661, 1000:661, Draft Our Daughters Hultgr….jpg)

a5352f No.533921


There was a doctrinal paper about "How does the airforce is gonna airforce, when you have AD systems that are 99% chance certain to shoot down everything flying bellow mach 3 from 0 to 70,000ft". That came out around the time the SA-10 first showed up.

First answer was "stealth", second was "drones" and some rebels said "SPEED AND ALTITUDE YOU FUCKING MORONS".

We all know who won.

And with the electronic tech boom, enabling to make stupid powerful radar miniscule and cheap, we all know who was right.

f20d84 No.533929


RAM coated nork missiles soon.

2c300d No.533955

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


the front fell off

425c0c No.533979

File: bf08b0d35d38d8f⋯.webm (853.21 KB, 1920x1088, 30:17, Pilot Impressed By F-35.webm)

467216 No.534012

File: b916642576251d5⋯.jpg (68.96 KB, 625x468, 625:468, Your face when - cum delic….jpg)


Wait. What sort of low T, pegging enthusiast, faggot wouldn't want their bombers travelling at 4300KMph at 22000m dropping GPS guided bombs that deliver a large chunk of their energy from the impact before they explode?

>Pic is USAF face when they made that decision.

59a79d No.534044


If you go subsonic at 10km your glide ratio is maybe 10:1. Meaning you have about 100km of range on a glide bomb. That puts you square in S-200 range, making it an unworkable way to bomb.

However if you drop at mach 3 at 25km altitude, suddenly your glide ratio is 30:1 (because of your speed) and you have 750km range. Meaning you can bomb the enemy with impunity with no way for their ground stations or fighters to return fire.

6a894f No.534051


>What sort of low T, pegging enthusiast, faggot wouldn't want


467216 No.534233


>GPS guided glide-bomb with 750km range


d16dfa No.534312


Is it even possible to drop a bomb at such speeds? I'd think opening any exterior panel without causing enormous aerodynamic issues at such speeds would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible. How was the XB-70 supposed to deliver its bombload? Was it supposed to slow down, drop, and run or was it able to drop its payload at full speed?

467216 No.534327

File: 53bf42b0b81d5f0⋯.jpg (36.14 KB, 620x447, 620:447, Why we no fund!.jpg)


>Checked a few maps

>with that range (750km) your bombers can unload over London, and hit targets in Geneva.

>Drop your bombs over Bucharest and hit Ankara.

Excuse the faggotry of the pic, but it seems to fit here.

a7b3e0 No.534328


I do not know anything about this, but it sounds awesome.

5ed6dc No.534331

File: 41d17ad67ea6788⋯.png (275.93 KB, 484x511, 484:511, no brakes on this train.PNG)



>GPS-guided bomb

>implying the russians wouldn't do it via CCRP+INS

Did we just meme most conventional air defences into obsolescence?

59a79d No.534340


Yes but they have to be specially shaped, and carried internally.

I think the A-12 (the lockheed) or the XB-7, I don't recall but I had a graphic of the program which briefly did a study on a topic. The jet would take a running start and drop a 2000lb cluster glide bomb 300km away from a Soviet Tank formation, completely out of range of SAM. The glide bomb would glide for the 300km it needed, then squirt out bomblets that took out the tank formation easily.


Russians are making PAK-DP and PAK-DA which are their next generation interceptor and bomber, currently in design, to be introduced around 2050. Both are designed to go around mach 4, and both the interceptor and bomber can drop munitions at this speed.

So don't worry, it will happen, we'll just discover what it means to be on the receiving end.

060d8a No.534342


Haven't read what's going on, but after the warhead the most expensive part of a bomb is the gyroscope (usually fiberoptic, sometimes mechanical) that tracks distance, rotation, etc. from a base point so that it can be accurate within a few inches of its target from hundreds of kilometers away. Point being, the gyroscope is the main system so as to ensure jamming is physically impossible in modern missile systems, and typically costs between $5,000 (artillery cannon) up to $50,000 (Long-range missiles) depending on the amount of accuracy/fidelity and redundancy of the system.

7cd868 No.534347

File: 4b43e5331fb5298⋯.pdf (1.84 MB, Steelman.pdf)

File: 356412fdcd1373a⋯.jpg (63.69 KB, 750x403, 750:403, AL_Fao_210mm_SP.jpg)

Remember that gliding isn't exclusive to aircraft, artillery can do that too. And there is life over 155mm.

faded1 No.534349


To put it simply, the F-35 is a plane that can't plane right.

It's meant to replace planes it's objectively incapable of replacing and even the features that "give it an edge" are either entirely falsified(see VTOL) or just don't work well(see Stealth).

faded1 No.534351


>Implying the F22 isn't a fuck up in it's own right.

e28c6f No.534352


Because the Chair Force is only for looking cool and shooting down other aircraft.

a7b3e0 No.534454


i think that was all part of the joke. I used to think the f22 was a fuckup but compared to everything now…

751213 No.534459

File: 109d75bad0223c3⋯.gif (33.82 KB, 733x556, 733:556, jvDkfJX.gif)

5ed6dc No.534460


Well the F-22 can fire its gun, which the F-35 can't until a scheduled software update in 2019.

59a79d No.534482


I had a half dozen links with all of info on this but they're all taken down.

Hold onto that pic, the internet is being purged.

a7b3e0 No.534503


>being purged

what kind of time frame?

917441 No.534511


>I had a half dozen links with all of info on this but they're all taken down.

Post the links anyway. Maybe they were archived.

0a56c1 No.534512

File: 49c248e81ad7e03⋯.jpg (39.11 KB, 640x640, 1:1, Let's do this!.jpg)


>Did we just meme most conventional air defences into obsolescence?

Assuming a 750km range on the glide-bomb, modern air defence radar has a max range of about 482km (assuming ideal everything). So, yes all existing air defence is now useless. Even if you more than tripled the radars range to 1500km your interceptors would only have about 10 minutes to scramble, climb to intercept altitude, travel at least 750km and shoot down the bombers.

I think you'd need a global network of orbital super-laser satellites (in addition to a radar powerful enough to count as an energy weapon by itself) to stop an attack with these weapons.

Let word go forth, today is the day that /k/ memed all air defence into oblivion!

Also, come on Lockheeb, I know at least one of your engineers hangs out here as a way to dull the pain, do this one awesome thing and I might just forgive you for … ok not all but some of your previous crimes.

0a56c1 No.534514

File: 473d691c8c52a74⋯.jpg (21.13 KB, 240x450, 8:15, Gerard Bull, you may now s….jpg)


Gentlemen, whenever the concept of long range super-artillery is brought up remember to raise a glass, observe a minutes silence, and toast the memory of Dr Gerard Bull - a brother /k/ommando blacklisted by NATO and murdered by Israel for the crime of trying to build the most epic gun ever. May he never be forgotten.

Appropriate music for the procedure is linked below.


d105b5 No.534524


>Also, come on Lockheeb, I know at least one of your engineers hangs out here as a way to dull the pain

They are already working on the SR-72 can't wait to see how they will fuck THAT up.

0a56c1 No.534526


>They are already working on the SR-72

I'm now imagining dropping a glide bomb from a hypersonic drone that's not so much flying as in very low orbit.

>drop the bomb over Paris and hit targets in Beijing :p

0cffe6 No.534673

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


You could still try to shoot down the bombs themselves. Of course the aircraft can try to overwhelm the "CIWS" with the sheer volume of bombs, but you too can concentrate your AA around key infrastructure.


I want to make at least some of his dreams real. We need space guns to shoot down satellites build industrial bases in the Earth-Moon Lagrange points! Fuck Elon Musk and his pansy rockets and wasteful Mars mission!

425c0c No.534678


I thought this was common knowledge?

64a50d No.534690


Joke goes arround in China that smogs the cheap mans defence against Satellite recon and laser guided weps. And to cover our great chairmans movements

0a56c1 No.534706


>try to overwhelm the "CIWS" with the sheer volume of bombs.

>Bomb bays 1 through 50 deployed.

>5000 glide bombs en route to target, eta 2 hours 47 minutes.


Also, how large would these bombs be? I'm guessing significantly smaller than a jet fighter, small enough to drop the detection range of the radar at least a little bit - and even if it doesn't as there's no engine it's heat signature will be negligible if it's even detectable.

>build industrial bases in the Earth-Moon Lagrange points!

Make sure to include automated asteroid mining systems as part of that industrial base. Use the resources gained from space to build an even larger cannon, on the moon, to fire human colonists to Mars!

0cffe6 No.534717

File: 52967f55419d7b8⋯.jpg (715.25 KB, 2048x1536, 4:3, 21_cm_kustartillerikanon.JPG)


>how large would these bombs be?

I guess that depends on how big of a weight the aircraft can lift, and how many bombs you want. For 5000 bombs with a weight of 100kg it would need to lift 500t, which sounds like a lot to me, especially if you want to lift them up high. But I can't into planes to be honest.

For a simple and ineffective comparison, let's assume you've got a cannon in the 180-240mm range that can fire a similar gliding bomb. Even in the 1930s such cannons could fire a shell weighting 100kg or more to a good 50km. I guess today you could push it to 200km if you really apply yourself (and use a long barrel). Even if the gliding only doubles the range, that's still 400km. If you can triple it then the range is 800km.

Now, you'd need 5000 of those cannons to fire at the same time for the same effect, which is hardly cost-efficient. You could also use 10 planes that can lift 5t, and it's still better than what the artillery can do. Although for sustained bombardment cannons are better, but I'm not sure why would you prefer that instead of a first strike.

But just for fun, let's assume that you use an artillery regiment with 64 cannons (4 artillery brigades, all of them with 4 batteries of 4 guns). If the sustained RoF is 1/min, then they can deliver 3840 gliding bombs every hour. So a barrage of 12 hours means 46 080 of those, 64 in every minute. I guess you could use this to destroy a whole city block-by-block. Or double them for 92 160 over a whole day. If somehow they can keep going for a whole week non-stop, then it's 645 120 bombs.

>I'm guessing significantly smaller than a jet fighter, small enough to drop the detection range of the radar at least a little bit - and even if it doesn't as there's no engine it's heat signature will be negligible if it's even detectable.

Indeed, but if you send them against only one target, then they have to follow the same general path, and once they are detected the defenders can concentrate everything at that direction. They could try things like exploding a few ballistic missiles in the path of the swarm.

>Make sure to include automated asteroid mining systems as part of that industrial base.

That's actually the whole point here, asteroid mining powered by sunlight. You only need to build up the first few self-sustaining stations with resources launched from Earth, and after that it can turn into a self-sustaining effort.

0cffe6 No.534742

File: fc95c83ccaa5f15⋯.webm (7.53 MB, 512x288, 16:9, Dark_Side_ni_Tsuitekite.webm)

Now that I think about it, couldn't you use an ICBM to deliver these gliding bombs? Yes, just like MIRVs, but with dumber ammunition. Of course you couldn't reuse it later. Expect if Musk gets his shit together and you manage to get the plans and use his Falcon rocket to devastate whole countries quickly and efficiently.

0a56c1 No.534746


>they can deliver 3840 gliding bombs every hour

Presumably you could MRSI that into a few waves with lots of bombs as opposed to a steady stream. I think most CIWS equivalents would have a harder time with a few large waves than with a constant rain at about the same rate constantly - unless you're just planning to shoot until the enemy runs out of CIWS ammo, which would be hilarious but not very efficient.

>they have to follow the same general path

Unless you planned your bombing raids to involve 20+ aircraft launching from various locations and times with the aim of getting a few hundred/thousand glide bombs hitting the target inside of a 30 second window from every point of the


>and after that it can turn into a self-sustaining effort.

and after that it's only a matter of time before the /k/ommando space program can reach every planet out there; and now I'm imagining Star Trek run by /k/ommandos

<What do you mean it has a non-lethal setting? What are you, some kind of faggot?

>It's OK m8, I just fiddled with the wiring and got these phaser pistols to deliver about the same energy as 3 and a bit kilos of semtex with each shot.

<Nice. Now, be honest with me, are we *absolutely* certain that "Project: Space Napalm" won't work?

0cffe6 No.534749

File: 5b1def6da2912a2⋯.jpg (220.66 KB, 1240x1654, 620:827, gliding bomb1.jpg)

File: d327c3494c4c16e⋯.jpg (185.18 KB, 1240x1654, 620:827, gliding bomb2.jpg)

File: 59c626cbc3fac08⋯.jpg (415.31 KB, 980x1598, 490:799, Barnes Wallis.jpg)


>Presumably you could MRSI that into a few waves with lots of bombs as opposed to a steady stream.

Or just go the Serbian way, and make modernized V2s. Although that still seems to be inferior compared to planes.

>Unless you planned your bombing raids to involve 20+ aircraft launching from various locations and times with the aim of getting a few hundred/thousand glide bombs hitting the target inside of a 30 second window from every point of the


And you could use seismic bombs too, even if you have to reduce the amount of bombs dropped. Remember this man and his work. Now I wonder if that coal powered combined pulsejet-ramjet thingy would work for such bombers. They just have to speed up to climb to the right altitude at the right place, drop the bombs, and then they too can just glide back to the base. Of course they should be drones programmed to do this whole ordeal automatically.

>and now I'm imagining Star Trek run by /k/ommandos

I seriously doubt that we would remain united long enough for that to happen. Expect if outer space is really full of alien threats for us to fight, but I think we would turn on each other even before we reach the edge of our solar system.

0a56c1 No.534751

File: 0e40d55a2cfe22b⋯.jpg (17.05 KB, 236x371, 236:371, The penis in your heart sh….jpg)


>Coal ramjet powered drone dropping extreme range, seismic, glide bombs.

Pic very related.

>I seriously doubt that we would remain united long enough for that to happen

That's even worse news for the xenos we find out there - they no longer have a single /k/ommando authority to negotiate with or defeat. They now have god knows how many cells and lone wolves hitting them all over their everything, several times an hour, in impossibly unconventional ways, and killing them off doesn't seem to drop the number of attacks. Alien Andy wouldn't have any choice but to surrender to all of them a few months after commencement of hostilities - granted nobody would survive several thousand /k/ommandos turning up to a peace conference (and there's no way the aliens could fulfil several million mutually contradictory demands). But hey, it's not like we wanted the war to end, right?

0a56c1 No.534753

File: 503314872fdf936⋯.jpg (151.53 KB, 500x500, 1:1, I'm not proud to be Britis….jpg)


>Barnes Wallis

>50% Man

>50% 40k Ork Mekboy

>500% Awesome

People raising stories like that get me feeling all patriotic. Thanks, I don't get many chances for those feels these days.

496a0f No.534773

File: 40d40d86125ee7c⋯.webm (7.34 MB, 576x432, 4:3, δ-dindu.webm)

File: a0b60183fe13dd3⋯.webm (498.33 KB, 480x360, 4:3, redhypod.webm)

File: 8ba562df4a76481⋯.webm (6.19 MB, 852x480, 71:40, Average_day_with_Janeway.webm)


>>It's OK m8, I just fiddled with the wiring and got these phaser pistols to deliver about the same energy as 3 and a bit kilos of semtex with each shot.

The TNG Tech Manual states that setting 16 is "Catastrophic geological displacement, as approximately 650 m3 of rock (of average density 6.0 g/cm^3) is explosively decoupled by a single discharge". Someone on /strek/ did the math, and that works out to 2 kilotons of energy in a one-second burst.

Imagine a Davy Crockett with the rate of fire of an M-61 Vulcan. That's roughly equivalent to the standard Federation sidearm.


>and now I'm imagining Star Trek run by /k/ommandos

Do you really need to imagine?

59a79d No.534774



IIRC Russians have a radar and GPS/INS onboard the bomber. Then a computer system predict the bombs path and draws where it will hit and the CEP on the bombers HUD. Then they just drop dumb unguided bombs that look like they were made in a shed.

If you put the GPS on the bomb like everyone else then you destroy the guidance system when the bomb explodes and it's also more jammable. This is more expensive and risky than the other method.


It would be possible to build a glide bomb of any size that's not detectible by current radar and infrared.

Because it doesn't have an engine and it's completely cold, it can't be seen in infrared. And because it has no radar reflecting pilot cabin, inlets or exhausts it's also a lot easier to reduce its signature.

That's why inert bombs are so powerful, they'll be like that even in space combat.

425c0c No.534791


Should seen what the Desert Rats did during WW2.

63f4ee No.534792

File: 7a9e25290d4f07a⋯.png (940.97 KB, 1920x1139, 1920:1139, Screen Shot 2017-12-08 at ….png)

File: d9f3a82466f17a6⋯.png (919.65 KB, 1920x1137, 640:379, Screen Shot 2017-12-08 at ….png)

File: 594836ad9197772⋯.png (1.91 MB, 1920x1140, 32:19, Screen Shot 2017-12-08 at ….png)

File: 4967d1faf267255⋯.png (2.1 MB, 1920x1137, 640:379, Screen Shot 2017-12-08 at ….png)


., join the army , get into the safe club again , lasers pointed at other airforce people is the stupid fights starting again , get to safety , protest laser weaponry early , ΘανΧσ βε το Θε Διφινε ινφινιτε υνιτυ , θε Διφινιτυ , Θε Δελτα-Διφινιτυ ,.

8bd4d1 No.534793


That's not how aerodynamics work nigger, you can't just linearly scale subsonic L/D ratios to supersonic speeds like that. Accelerating from Mach 1 to Mach 3 will only increase the range by about ~50% at best, probably less due to all the drag from the wings and fins. If you want to outrange the enemy you need some kind of engine, preferably a jet of some description.


how many drugs are you on right now

59a79d No.534798


Is that Roman or Egyptian?

Is that Linux or Crapple?

10856d No.534802

yeah the F35 ould be incredibly useful were we to figgit the entire Russo chink Alli ance fede4#5tion

but as it stands now there's nothing wrong with the adam (brrrrtt) and the f16 (Mai waifu {cums bux owo} ) for dropping boom booms on dune coons

0a56c1 No.534817


>It would be possible to build a glide bomb of any size that's not detectible by current radar and infrared.

So it is effectively impossible to defend against these weapons, except possibly by burying the target a mile and half underground.


>Should seen what the Desert Rats did during WW2.

Oh, absolutely, the Desert Rats did some awesome stuff (and are probably more than 50% Mekboy) but I just love Barnes Wallis's record.

>I want to build a bomb that's *so* big just one of them would shut down a German industrial district.

<Dude, that's insane, it'll never work.

>I'll make it work

he makes it work

<Well, it's still too big for any aircraft to carry it, and no plane has gone as high as you say it needs to go to drop this. It'll never work.

>I'll make it work.

he makes it work

<Ok, so you just designed the most advanced aircraft ever to carry this bomb … well we don't have the resources to continue with this project.

>Fine, I'll go and build a bomb that bounces or something.

<Dude, what the fuck are you smoking? Bombs don't bounce.

>My bombs bounce.

His work after the war on swing wing designs, remote control aircraft, radio telescopes and the aerodynamics of supersonic flight is probably more useful than an earthquake bomb etc but we never even gave his nuclear powered cargo submarines (designed to ensure that nobody could ever slap a working trade embargo on Britain) a try.

425c0c No.534832

You know why don't we just strap bombs to weather balloons? Some can go high into the stratosphere. Nobody would see them coming and they would be very stealthy.

2bc2c0 No.534839

File: 9631bb3981fdb93⋯.png (584.81 KB, 682x982, 341:491, eternal_anglo.png)


>So it is effectively impossible to defend against these weapons

I doubt that they are completely undetectable, if nothing else try some nearly forgotten technologies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_mirror Remember that some underwater mines still use this technology, and they can be programmed to only be activated by the sound of a certain ship. I of course don't know if you can actually make a firing solution for your AA based on sound only.


Back to the old tricks?



59a79d No.534848


Being hard to find is one layer of defense. Not being there when it hits is another. Also the bombs won't be hitting directly, so some armor to protect from fragments would be nice.

Basically if you want your factories to survive they have to either be so camouflaged that they can't be found, or be mobile and armored.

0a56c1 No.534854




<Hope you weren't planning on using it for anything.


<So limited to low tier IED production?


<That's not going to be cheap, but it would at least make it harder to destroy the factories, it would raise the weight of ordnance you have to chuck at them at the very least.

Then again imagine the Russians attaching ERA bricks to every building they care about.

425c0c No.534855

File: 04fccd49bfd4e74⋯.jpg (199.82 KB, 493x600, 493:600, 55454736_p0_master1200.jpg)


>Back to the old tricks?

The old ways are the best ways.

25e6c7 No.534859


The importance of the factory itself surviving an attack is only important relative to the type of work machinery it contains, if everything is computer integrated then destruction is fairly catastrophic. On the other hand however, even in the event of a relatively close strike by a nuclear device the majority of pre-computerization machinery is actually salvageable after a blast and can be used sans permanent structure.


only CAD factories need any kind of defense in nuclear war.

2bc2c0 No.534860

File: 538a487756a9470⋯.png (1.1 MB, 991x788, 991:788, industrial.png)


Can you containerize a factory? For small arms it could work, if you design the small arms in question with that in mind. But I doubt you can do the same with a tank factory, an iron mill, or a chemical plant.

8344da No.534861


>only CAD factories need any kind of defense in nuclear war.

Not exactly, if that factory refines or produces raw materials into useful alloys or other materials, it's also important.

If you can destroy an oilfield, a steel, coal, iron nickel or a copper mine etc, that's an even better target (if you don't plan on using their resources).

Ports, airports and long highways as well are decent targets.

You try to destroy the enemy's capability to fight, not only do you destroy factories, but what feeds those factories and what defends those factories.

25e6c7 No.534862


Depends on the factory, most Tank factories are just assembly yards it's the subcontractors that do the real work making hulls. A chemical plant should, in theory, be possible since most are a series of reaction chambers filtering and funneling chemicals along a line. a steel mill is probably difficult like the tank line, since it needs large damageable kilns. the forge rollers are probably doable though.


I agree that primary and secondary industry are valuable targets. However there has been no point in history when a nuclear power has had enough nuclear weapons in a fireable state in order to spare them for primary industry (or specific secondary industry) without also breaking doctrine regarding striking military targets.

2bc2c0 No.534865

File: 909dc97c062a5dc⋯.jpg (558.36 KB, 1992x1342, 996:671, industrial_robots.jpg)


>most Tank factories are just assembly yards it's the subcontractors that do the real work making hulls

Even so, how would you assemble the hull itself? Would you put industrial robots and cranes on container-sized units?

>since it needs large damageable kilns

Honestly, even that is believable if you use lots of smaller units, although it would be far from efficient. But to power all of this without a grid…. Moreover, ore mining and processing is the bigger problem. Although you could use scrap metal, especially in a country that has no iron mines to begin with.

>nuclear weapons

What if instead of nuclear weapons you use 64 cannons to fire 645 120 glide bombs over a week? You could a few of them to damage some mines and whatnot.

I know that everything in this post is too insane to be practical, but that shouldn't stop us.

25e6c7 No.534866


>i know this post is insane

We're too busy thinking if we can to think about if we should, and i like it that way!

i think for the most part tank assembly is just done with regular old chains, winches, and human welders. i think regular civilian cranes could be re purposed.

The trouble with conventional weapons is that they go off alot more often than nukes, meaning that the constant bomb sirens and sheltering of workers will throw more of a wrench into production than even the explosions.

the question with such continual shelling is not about whether or not you can do significant damage (you absolutely can) but whether you are doing damage at a rate disproportionate to what your enemy does. i think my response to glide bombs has to be more questions. What is the range of a glide bomb? it's yield in TNT equiv? what size cannon can fire it?

8344da No.534900

File: 0bd2e2445593373⋯.jpg (9.06 KB, 276x183, 92:61, sea dragon.jpg)



I've had a better idea for years.

You use the Sea Dragon concept of a rocket as a launch vehicle . It was made to be a cheap high-payload rocket that can be launched from the ocean with a payload of 550 tons.

You can fit 550 1 ton glide bombs or 1100 half ton glide bombs or 2200 quarter ton glide bombs.

Each bomb has it's own target set therefore you have a maximum of 2200 targets that can be hit with one launch within a 385 mile radius if it "blooms" at 100,000 feet (if there's no enemy defenses).

59a79d No.534954



Thats true. Then again I also wonder how much more important supply lines are.


If a single factory gets wiped out, couldnt the supply lines that supplied it be used to bring materials for a whole replacement factory to be built right next door?

Assuming its not insanely complex computer chip manufacture, we already know after the Taiwan floods that those factories are pretty much irreplaceable.



>literally a bunch of containers

>drop them off in the desert

>one container pops open, vehicle comes out, starts making train tracks

>other containers pop open, robot arms begin building factory around them

>run supply lines to it

>factory builds then runs itself

>factory decides humans are inferior

>factory begins building other factories

>second generation factories assemble themselves, begin building third generation factories

>entire earths surface covered by factories

>blowing one up does nothing, they replicate too fast

Can we dial it back a little bit?

59a79d No.534956


>550 tons

To orbit? Because it could be easily double that if you weren't concerned about being orbital…

2bc2c0 No.534960

File: 52a4b3ddf8c0eaa⋯.jpg (605.09 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, Command-and-Conquer-Genera….jpg)

File: d64e207a550cca3⋯.webm (5.76 MB, 480x360, 4:3, Command And Conquer Gener….webm)


I thought of that too >>534742 A potential problem is that a nuclear state could mistook it for the launch of an actual nuke, and the consequences would be quite severe. Once the soviets nearly pushed the big red button when a Nordic country launched a much smaller sounding rocket.


>literally a bunch of containers

>drop them off in the desert

>one container pops open, vehicle comes out, starts making train tracks

>other containers pop open, robot arms begin building factory around them

>run supply lines to it

Wait, we Command and Conquer now? Because I like that. Generals kind of predicted a few thing to begin with.

>Can we dial it back a little bit?


496a0f No.534967


The factory idea is basically von Neumann machines, except instead of colonizing an entire galaxy with them we dropped them on our own planet. Fantastic.


>>Can we dial it back a little bit?


Come to think of it, von Neumann was Hungarian.

64a50d No.534969


I mean, they did perdict the religion of peace Allahu snackbar in europe?

>China building knock off russian migs

LOL that hasnt changed.

2bc2c0 No.534977

File: 004de0ecb6a3224⋯.jpeg (864.3 KB, 1658x2362, 829:1181, Krupp.jpeg)


>If a single factory gets wiped out, couldnt the supply lines that supplied it be used to bring materials for a whole replacement factory to be built right next door?

Forgot to answer: if you can indeed put all the machinery into containers, then I guess the answer is yes. During ww2 completely burned out factories were still producing war materials if the machinery wasn't damaged and they had resources and work force available. So maybe instead of mobile factories you need easily repairable ones. And maybe have smaller independent factories inside one factory complex, defended by lots of AAA. This way even if one factory is damaged, the others in the complex can produce, and the damaged one can be repaired.

I'm not sure if the modern method of buying everything from subcontractors is a good or a bad thing in this scenario. On one hand it's more distributed, on the other hand the real problem of the German industry was the destruction of their railway system. I remember something about having a factory full of tank turrets that were ready for shipping into an other factory to be installed on the hulls, but instead the war ended with those turrets being stuck there. And there are also lots of German weapons produced at the end of the war that weren't used because they couldn't reach the front lines.

So you could have factories that only need bar stock, rolls of sheet metal and plastic granulate to produce a whole tank (expect for the optics and other quite important parts), and the machinery can be quickly replaced. You could even group them together, and have something like 4 of them in a complex, and go over the top and build an additional one under each of them for 4 underground factories. And also stockpile machinery somewhere inside. And surround it with your best mobile AA assets. But could it actually survive a war? Maybe it's better to build a simpler factory and just use the money to build more tanks during peace time.


A Hungarian jew. They are quite a strange bunch, somehow over the centuries we managed to kill out the kikery in quite a lot of them, and turn them into useful people. They basically gave the world the nuclear bomb. But also a lot of them became legit Überkikes. Just to give you two names: Herzl Tivadar is the father of Zionism, and then there is good ol' Soros György.

8344da No.534978


> A potential problem is that a nuclear state could mistook it for the launch of an actual nuke

I highly doubt they would do this, mainly because you need seismologists to find you doing weird stuff within or around your borders for them to assume it's a nuke.

2bc2c0 No.534984


Maybe wikipedia is just being shit, but it doesn't sound like seismic activity:


>During its flight, the rocket eventually reached an altitude of 1,453 kilometers (903 mi), resembling a U.S. Navy submarine-launched Trident missile. As a result, fearing a high-altitude nuclear attack that could blind Russian radar, Russian nuclear forces were put on high alert, and the nuclear weapons command suitcase was brought to Russian president Boris Yeltsin, who then had to decide whether to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike against the United States.

And it wasn't even the USSR.

8344da No.534993


Jesus Christ,

I guess the way Russia looks it, they look for high altitude attacks from the US rather than just a random country proliferating nuclear arsenals.

If you aren't close the Russia then there wouldn't really be a problem with them, the US however, look for weird seismic activity and pick up of that country is making nukes or not (They've used this to find out about Indian, Pakistani and North Korean nuclear programs)

2bc2c0 No.534994


>If you aren't close the Russia then there wouldn't really be a problem with them

So basically it would be a problem in Europe, Central Asia, and Northeast Asia. Basically the whole northern part of the Eurasian landmass. Then you have to add India, Pakistan and maybe even China and North Korea too. So all of Eurasia. For the Middle East and Mediterranean you have to add Israel, even if it's not that serious of a threat. Basically all that remains is Sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas. In the former there is hardly anything worth of bombing, other than the infrastructure of non-African countries. For the later, I guess you could bomb back most countries to the stone age here without worrying too much about the consequences.

8344da No.534996


> you have to add India, Pakistan and maybe even China and North Korea too.

Not exactly, Pakistan and India only really have nuclear arsenals for against eachother, China usually stays out of things and have a policy of "you have to hit us first" and North Korea does not have a capable guidance system as of yet since their nuclear capabilities consist of WWII tech and a re-purposed orbital launch system.

8cbdc9 No.535239


Well there goes my erection.

34342f No.535247


>That's not how aerodynamics work nigger, you can't just linearly scale subsonic L/D ratios to supersonic speeds like that.

This. Also different ranges of speed have different shapes as aerodynamically optimal.

cfe72c No.535273




>having the balls to call someone a nigger while being this wrong

Simply look at >>534459 that's 860km of glide range.

Don't talk shit before reading.

8bd4d1 No.535406


SRAM is a missile you dumb shit, it doesn't even have wings.

jesus this site is falling apart, this is my tenth attempt at posting

1b53c8 No.537126

So how long till one of these get shot down?

cfe72c No.537151


Can you read an image? In that image it's flying 952km.

What do you think the powered range of SRAM is, it's a solid fuel motor it burns up really fast. You'll see ranges of 160km at high altitude and 55km at low altitude, the reason it varies is because it glides for most of that. Powered range is way less than 50km.

Subtract them to get the range it has purely by gliding.

75a09d No.543857

Anyone got that post saved where an anon worked out for the cost of delivering 1000 F-35's to the USAF the USAF could have 300000 MiG-21's?

bb0dca No.543910


Pretty well fucked/negated by maintenance though mate.

1105f8 No.543944


Not really. It's just the fuel that fucks you up given that most of them would go on a one way trip so maintenance would not be needed.

c6119d No.544575


Meh, it's a well-polished turd.

1f9f7d No.544980


That's not necessarily a good thing when there are persisting indications that the (((parasite))) is trying to switch hosts.

Did you really think that slants were capable to perform (((espionage))) on the F-35's blueprints solely on their own?


2fbd81 No.545134

File: d9d9fb2d49112eb⋯.jpeg (458.16 KB, 2560x1600, 8:5, blacbirb.jpeg)

What happened to this thing, anyway?

a5169f No.545153


Too good for this world. Also spy satellites.

fcbc14 No.545158


Lockheed buried it in order to hide the shame of having a successful design.

693d99 No.545168


>Does the F-35 JSF really suck?


There is so much retarded parroting around this jet. But no it doesn't suck. It cost way too much. It's whole purpose was to be inexpensive. Which the jet will be cheap- less than f-18 super hornets. Long time costs will be less. It replaces 3 jets. So unified supplies for that will be easier to manage. AGAIN. This jet was not supposed to be the very best fighter jet. It is meant to be a workhorse against sand niggers, and other shit tier countries. They are relying on it advanced weapon capability if it is used against other major powers.

This plane is meant to be a advanced weapon system. Not a dog fighter. Dog fighting is obsolete. It is meant to be tied to other f-35's, and other advanced information systems. It will then unleash advanced payloads from a distance. It is intended to fly high volume sorties relying on large payloads.

The f-16 fake news is repeated endlessly. It was an exercise against a f-16 with no payload. not even a competition.

Good points regarding the f-35

>high payload

>Inexpensive single jet cost


>long range.

>no need to replace hydraulic fluid after every flight.

>unified supply chain. Massive administrative cost and training costs.

In the end it probably wasn't worth it because of the MASSIVE over costs. We should not of scrapped the f-22. The f-35 will likely not be able to replace the a-10 either. But the f-35 will be in service for a very long time. It will be the workhouse for probably at least 50 years. Advanced weapons are the future and this will deliver those for a long time.

seriously, research for yourself. Go see what air force pilots say. They love the aircraft and are excited regarding it's potential.

fcbc14 No.545172


> They love the aircraft and are excited regarding it's potential

Though I agree for the most part of the post, come on now… you won't see many soldiers bitching that their country's only weapon in their line of work will suck.

ca28bc No.545178


The best news I've heard about the F-35 is that F-16 pilots that were transferred have stopped complaining. Tomcat pilots that were sent to the F/A-18 never stopped, you can still hear them today.


>you won't see many soldiers bitching that their country's only weapon in their line of work will suck.

That's like 80% of what soldiers do during a war, bellyache about their shit and talk up how much better the other guy's stuff is.

f2e38e No.545185


>Good points regarding the F-35

Except it's none of those things?


RNAF pilots have a gag order on them due to the complaints they made.

b030d7 No.545189


>high payload

Compared to what? A seagull?

>inexpensive single jet cost

Since when?



>long range

as long as you tankers

>no need to replace hydraulic fluid after every flight.

No just the panels that have fallen off

>unified supply chain.

That runs through 48 states :^)

Lockheeb shills really are a thing I see.

1c6577 No.545190

File: 06d12d1ce94f34b⋯.jpg (26.42 KB, 541x376, 541:376, DQSRj95X0AELpKo.jpg)


>But the f-35 will be in service for a very long time. It will be the workhouse for probably at least 50 years.

ca28bc No.545193


Have you considered that the pilots don't exist and the MoD is just pretending they had to gag them as part of an elaborate psyop to convince people that the RN still exists

f2e38e No.545196


Considering they seemed to try and cover up the idea that Britbongistan is a Maritime nation this would honestly not surprise me.

Seriously what nation SCRAPS it's Maritime patrol aircraft when it is a Maritime nation to begin with?

693d99 No.545198







I am not going to waste alot of time on your incredulous fucks. Read this fucking article.


Pilots overwhelmingly prefer the f-35 to all other fighters.

and research for yourselves because you won't believe dick. You fucking cunts.


f-15 has been in service 42 years.

f2e38e No.545202

File: a5e6feaa899e0ce⋯.gif (959.93 KB, 364x355, 364:355, 1433437118355.gif)


>(((The Heritage Foundation)))

Please tell me you aren't serious?

b030d7 No.545203

File: e5251f095ce4598⋯.jpg (21.1 KB, 640x360, 16:9, 239051.jpg)


>It's good cause Lobbyists said so!

I needed a good laugh, thanks.

b5529e No.545204



Anything that gets routinely rekt on performance AND price by previous gen planes is an abysmal failure.

>It was an exercise against a f-16 with no payload. not even a competition.



It was weighed down with two fuel tanks, which it would never carry into combat with another plane. That was specifically done to handicap the F16 and IT STILL WON.


From best quarter, inferior to F-117 which was brought down by Serbs in the 90s using 60s technology. We have seen over 20 years of anti stealth air defense development since that event… technology didnt take a step BACK, so F35 wont magically be MORE safe.

From worst quarter (rear) it has a similar signature to F-18 ASH.

>high payload

Its internal payload is pathetic. Any use of external payload makes it a $100 mil jet with a (new build) $20 million third gen aircraft performance , making the entire exercise useless.

>Inexpensive single jet cost

The promise was $50 million, it bloomed to $135 million, and nowwere seeing "promises" of $80 million. These are prices for which a frigate can be purchased.

>long range.

Because it incorporates fuel tanks into the fuselage. Other aircraft use drop tanks to achieve the same effect, and can DROP empty tanks to gain on perfornance while F35 is stuck carrying its empty tanks around like a giant drag chute.

>no need to replace hydraulic fluid after every flight.

Is this a joke? It has 50 maintenance man hours per flight hour. Considering it flies about two hours per mission, thats over FOUR DAYS OF HANGAR TIME PER MISSION.

>unified supply chain.

No its not. Its spread over 70 states and countries, it would have been cheaper to build 70 different stealth fighters.

66077c No.545206

File: e1edc23c521b623⋯.jpg (35.71 KB, 736x524, 184:131, f05d3cb8b8791d735bd6b9b8ae….jpg)


See what you've done there is not just shot yourself in the foot, but taken a mortar and blown the entire leg off.

1c6577 No.545210


>f-15 has been in service 42 years.

The F-15 is also functional and comparatively cheap. I wasn't upset that we will be using a plane for 50 years, but that the design we will be using is the F-35.

693d99 No.545213


See costs to other 5th gen fighers. f-35 is less.

>Anythinng that gets routinely rekt on performance AND rice by previous gen planes is an abysmal failure.

objectively false. Final F-35 Kill Ratios at Red Flag 17-1 (and USMC Exercises)


>Its internal payload is pathetic. Any use of external payload makes it a $100 mil jet with a (new build) $20 million third gen aircraft performance , making the entire exercise useless.

It's a weapon system again name fag. Look up the how it's linking information system works, and how that relates to advanced weapons.

of course your a namefag. Why do so many faggots get off on hating the f-35?

You all missing the whole fucking point. I defend the f-35 because 95% of people hate this aircraft because of a bandwagon mentality, and they love to jeer at the horribly run project. This aircraft has a weapon philosophy people are willfully ignorant of. It may not be the correct philosophy. They made a gamble on high tech sensors and weapons over fast dog fighters. If the jet was shit, countries wouldn't keep signing up to buy it.

fcbc14 No.545216

File: c379a1e7aa45563⋯.jpg (20.86 KB, 500x324, 125:81, I came here to... wait... ….jpg)

>SCRAPS it's Maritime patrol aircraft

Wait… are you serious? Sauce?

f2e38e No.545217



Considering the RAF sent Buccaneers over in the 80's and 90's which raped the F-16's before they told them they weren't allowed to fight dirty i.e. as if they were fighting in combat conditions this point is mute.

>Thinking it not being a dogfighter is the main gripe with it

You don't know what roles it's meant to be performing do you? If you did you'd know immediately why everyone hates it.

>If the jet was shit, countries wouldn't keep signing up to buy it.

You obviously know absolutely fuck all about the history of military procurement or how Lockheeb Martin gets 99.9999% of all it's contracts don't you?


Look up the Nimrod. Retardation beyond measure.

fcbc14 No.545218


>It's a weapon system again name fag. Look up the how it's linking information system works, and how that relates to advanced weapons.

Isn't that something any aircraft can do with updated software though?

693d99 No.545219


No. Watch videos on youtube regarding the technology in the F-35. The pentagon is pursuing High Tech drone wingmen for the f-35 that will be tied to their information system.

693d99 No.545220


your a raging uninformed faggot.

b5529e No.545221



>See costs to other 5th gen fighers. f-35 is less.

PAKFA is the only other mordern 5th gen, it has superior tech, and is half the price. F22 had its tooling destroyed, price would be smaller otherwise

>Final F-35 Kill Ratios at Red Flag 17-1 (and USMC Exercises)

Red flag was an advertisement, it wasnt allowed to participate against even Indian 4th gen jets.

Also that means fuck all, MiG29 had 18:1 kill ratio vs F16 because of a single weapon system (high off bore IR missiles).

>It's a weapon system again name fag.

Is the internal payload small or not faggot?

Why does this nigger keep calling me a namefag? Thats not even possible on /k/!

693d99 No.545222


well I can see your mind is made up. Fact makes no difference to you.

The payload and range of the f-35 is far above it's competition. A well known fact you cant seem to understand.

ef3d13 No.545225


>PAKFA is the only other mordern 5th gen, it has superior tech

They don't even have engines yet and the stealth is "questionable".

It also won't have enough numbers to make a considerable impact.

>previous post about the cost of each individual fighter

the price has gone below that of the F/A-18E/Fs per airframe including engine.

>internal payload

For what role exactly? it can hold 4 AIM-120s/ 4 AIM 9s, 2 2000lbs JDAM with 2 AIM-120s/2 AIM-9s or 8 SDBs.

if you add those with the external points for most missions, it's higher than most aircraft it replaces.

8a58f0 No.545241

File: b4dbef9cc75f21e⋯.jpg (115.27 KB, 1024x652, 256:163, oven-1024x652.jpg)

It sux because it doesn't have a oven on board to cook your tendies like the b52 has.

fcbc14 No.545245


>The payload of the f-35 is far above it's competition.

Currently it can only carry up to two AMRAAMs internally.

fcbc14 No.545246


Just to be clear, that refers to air combat configuration, with two additional Sidewinders.

f2e38e No.545270


That's you actually.

Seriously just stop. It's just embarassing to read anything you say now.

Literally everything you've said is "HEY GUIZE LOOK AT THIS LOCKHEEB PROPAGANDA! IT MUST BE GOOD!"

Kill yourself.


>Why does this nigger keep calling me a namefag? Thats not even possible on /k/!

Lockheeb shill is obvious. I thought that was clear?


>the price has gone below that of the F/A-18E/Fs per airframe including engine.

On what planet?

>it can hold 4 AIM-120s/ 4 AIM 9s, 2 2000lbs JDAM with 2 AIM-120s/2 AIM-9s or 8 SDBs.

Key word here is can. Doesn't mean it will ever take off or be able to fly with such a load which so far they have been very relucatant to demostrate.

>it's higher than most aircraft it replaces

If you consider that most of the aircraft it replaces are the equivalent of early F-16's, Harriers, Jaguars, early Mirages etc that's not a big achievement. When you consider it is also supposed to be replacing the equivalent of the F-4 Phantom, Buccaneer, Tornado, F-111, F-14, F-15, etc that is laughable.

In fact that last sentence is exactly why the F-35 has been crucified, it is not a suitable replacement nor will it ever be for the aircraft it's been slated to replace.


Needs a toilet as well :^)

86f565 No.545274


This guy is a raging faggot. You have no clue what you are talking about.

>It doesn’t have range

The F-35 has more range than any other western fighter, and almost certainly more than any other fighter. The F-35 carries far more fuel compared to its total weight, has a higher bypass engine (more efficiency) and a higher optimal cruise speed than any other fighter (even the F-22). The public range numbers for the F-35 are literally the combat radius multiplied by two. The combat radius is calculated by the armed services for performing a real mission with a full weapons load, full afterburner turns and loitering. Where as most non-US aircraft feature range numbers that are calculated purely from flying in a strait line at optimal cruise (their radius is than just half that). Thus, range numbers between US and non-US aircraft are not comparable. Even inter-service and different platforms calculate their radius/range differently based on the kind of mission they are expected to regularly perform.

>has light payload limits,

The F-35A can carry 5,700 lbs interanlly, which is more than a mission loaded F-16, F-18 or AV-8B. With a full internal fuel load, the F-35A can carry more than 18,000 lbs of munitions, which is more than any aircraft except the F-15E. With a maximum weapons load, the F-35 can carry 22,300 lbs of munitions. By any measure, the F-35 carries a ton of munitions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/7kyhxd/jack_of_all_nothing/ read through those comments. My airforce buddy sent that to me. Yes I know its reddit.

2d4471 No.545276


>Calls others a raging faggot

>Has linked to The Heritage Foundation

>Linked to Kiketube

>Cited Redflag

>Now links reddit

How retarded are you?

66077c No.545278

File: 7923266c2269cdd⋯.jpg (6.78 KB, 200x303, 200:303, doubt.jpg)


>Makes claims

>No real proofs

Unless you can produce a valid citation that's not a retarded circlejerk with vested interests then nobody will ever take anything you say seriously. We all know what the capabilities of existing aircraft are so the burden of proof is on you.

In the meantime the performance stats and listed payloads of the F-35 have always been very much off and suspect to the point that if they were true they would break the laws of physics. Which is frankly nothing new when Lockheeb have shilled a product. The stats of the craft vary wildly every month and those who do actually have the craft are being suspiciously silent on the capabilities of the craft. I would not be surprised if someone claimed it could reach the moon and back next month.


>Arguing with the anon that has just brought up the Buccaneer in Redflag

If it's who I think it is, you're about to get BTFO.

960221 No.545280

File: 6a64b118b2ea60a⋯.jpg (39.49 KB, 559x514, 559:514, nimród.jpg)


>Look up the Nimrod. Retardation beyond measure.

Fuck you.

f2e38e No.545282


None of the shit you've just said is real, or will ever be real. Your chairforce buddy is clearly having you on if he thinks that's legit.


No not him, but trying to summon him. Last time he showed it was fucking hilarious with how many Burgers he made cry. Stuff he told about "M-muh F-22" was beyond funny


See! It doesn't even have wings!

cbc12f No.545286


>F-35 can carry more load than an F-22


f2e38e No.545287


D'aww you had to go and spoil it for him?

Yeah for everyone's information the retarded Lockheeb shill just stated that an F-35 can carry more ordnance than an F-22. I was waiting for who would be the first to spot that.

If you ever needed a clue to filter and hide his posts there it is. I just want to see what his response is for keks.

8e7042 No.545289


>jet aircraft

>no wings


>hot tub


66077c No.545291



Holy shit yeah you're right, he is claiming that the F-35 can carry more than the F-22. I knew the Joint Shekel Finder disinfo was getting out of hand but I never knew they'd fuck up this badly.

Unless the F-35 has some device that changes the very laws of physics I doubt it will approach even half the load the idiot specified.

8cf795 No.545331



no where does post say it has greater capacity than a f22? what is the capacity of the f-22?







The amount of butt hurt Euro faggots in this thread is unbearable. You can't even argue on the basis of any of the sourced facts. You refuse to accept any fact. You offer no fact. You have your minds made up, and refuse to accept any reality that doesn't match your preconceptions. PURE FAGGOTYRY.

b5529e No.545335


>They don't even have engines yet and the stealth is "questionable".

Its currently flying and they invented the math for stealth. Basic stealth shaping is spot on, only ones questioning its stealth are shills.

>It also won't have enough numbers to make a considerable impact.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Its cheaper than F35 without scale economies thats a good thing.

>the price has gone below that of the F/A-18E/Fs per airframe including engine


Also other companies are massively increasing prices of their jets because they see Lockheed being granted a government monopoly selling a piece of shit for a hundred mil. If Pepsi scores a government grant selling a 2 liter fot $100, you can be sure Coca Cola wont keep their 2 liter price at a few bucks.

>external points

If it uses those it becomes non stealth. And its performance is inferior to F4 Phantom, so it becomes a $100 mil third gen.

It replaces aircraft like:

- F15E

- F18 all variants

- F16 all variants

- A10

- A6 all variants

- Harrier

In the US arsenal… and many more jets in foreign air forces, including interceptors.

Its not adequate for what it replaces. This failure in performance, and the failure in pricing, makes the f35 a FAILURE.


66077c No.545339


>Being this buttblasted

>Calling someone in Rwanda Euro

>Not knowing the capacity of the F-22

>Not knowing the capacity of real aircraft

You see if you bothered to check shit like this up first before you posted you wouldn't be laughed at so much.

5dd6ad No.545346


> You can't even argue on the basis of any of the sourced facts

Probably they were just politely trying to overlook the issue of your sources:


5dd6ad No.545347


>>They don't even have engines yet

You forgot to mention that even if the PAK-FA was to roll into production with the current Su-35's AL-31 variant it would still have a better t/w than the F-35.

f2e38e No.545349

File: 54363e87bbf1f3e⋯.jpg (11.69 KB, 385x278, 385:278, LaughingMarines.jpg)


This is really your response? Pathetic. Put more effort into it.

FYI F-22 scarpes around 3,000 lbs with an average payload if it decides to take off with fuel. If it decides to strap all weapons it can as possible it's barely scraping 20,000lbs if it wants fuel. You said that the F-35 can exceed that.

You're telling us that the F-35 which is around the size of an F-16 is able to carry more than an F-22 when you slap as much ordnance to is as possible?

As the Rwanda anon said, in what reality?

This is the sort of shit why any anon knew immediately you were full of crap and was ignoring anything you said. Now as shitposts go it was slightly amusing but you were trying too hard to be an angry leaf.

In the tiny offchance you were being serious well pic related.

2d4471 No.545351


>F-35 has higher payloads than dedicated ground attack aircraft as well as heavier airframes.

Holy shit can you please stop fucking talking now. Like seriously you know absolutely fucking nothing about what you are talking about. If you killed yourself it would improve the IQ of the world significantly overnight.

2d4471 No.545352


and to add to this


>Not knowing shit about the F-22 when making bullshit claims about F-35

You thought /k/ of all places wouldn't be able to spot your retardation from a mile away? You don't fucking belong here.

2a3a80 No.545354

File: 152cc1c6502f50e⋯.png (55.32 KB, 1330x1607, 1330:1607, 1516664685973.png)


I am not the other faggot you were arguing with. Just a dude that saw a bunch of faggots in this thread. None of you fucks are providing any sources to back up or dismiss claims. one dude who provides sources while retarded, none of you even bothered to look at the facts of those sources and debunk them, using a more credible source. THIS IS FAGGOTRY. /k has become more retarded then I fucking thought.

Furthermore, If you google the f-35 payload there are a ton of sources claiming in "Beast Mode" payload is around 22k.


Also by the fact you think Size of the aircraft is the determining factor for payload makes me think you are an even bigger faggot.

If any of you fucks want to be taken seriously, at least cite source material and argue the points of the provided facts.

mods should nuke this fucking thread.

Everyone in here is pic related.

2e619c No.545355

File: 55e5de56cddc396⋯.png (14.87 KB, 800x600, 4:3, endknight.png)


Lockheeb shill, pls go and stay go. Your planefu sucks and is a money sucking whore.

2a3a80 No.545356

File: 98221ebfefa8c48⋯.png (305.22 KB, 436x477, 436:477, 1515789214825.png)


do you honestly think Lockheed has shills on infinity /k?

2e619c No.545357


>1 lockheeb shekel has been deposited into your account

2d4471 No.545358


>I am not the other faggot you were arguing with

Nice ID hoping.

6952c6 No.545360

File: 66ca39a0474f84d⋯.jpg (109.57 KB, 595x706, 595:706, Comparison.jpg)


>in what reality?

2d4471 No.545362


>Photo credit: Lockheed Martin

f2e38e No.545364


>according to Lockheed Martin

Holy shit still at it? You are getting the quality of discussion your posts warrant.

6952c6 No.545365

File: 3c22391b4d05b2d⋯.jpg (57.03 KB, 600x656, 75:82, 88fc68d68b6e04f4fac03e57ae….jpg)


>TFW butt hurt bongs are incapable of providing any sources for their horseshit, and are only able to provide logical fallacies.

66077c No.545366


Well for one thing I know for certain. An AMRAAM does not weight 850 lbs. It weights a lot less than that

Though keep these made up facts from Lockheeb Martin coming up. This is indeed fun watching you fuck up time and time again.

f2e38e No.545367


Is pic related you before you decided to post this shit?

2d4471 No.545368


I am pretty sure you are the one butthurt since everyone keeps pointing out your sources are shit.

6952c6 No.545369

File: a592995314842b3⋯.jpg (112.96 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 1513197891506.jpg)


Sources can be shit only through repudiation of other sources that are more credible. All balking is due to head cannon of a bunch of fucking Bongs and shitholers.

Someone post even a half credible source that challenges widely available facts.

2d4471 No.545370


>Being this buttblasted over Britbongs cause they pointed out you were full of shit

>Implying anything you've said has been a fact

You are a special case aren't you?

66077c No.545374

File: bd8e6d21949e574⋯.jpg (937.32 KB, 989x5094, 989:5094, orc amerimutt.jpg)



I wouldn't have called your fellow 56% shitholers yet.

5dd6ad No.545375

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.



b5529e No.545386

File: d503d531057efab⋯.jpg (535.53 KB, 1668x1123, 1668:1123, QF-4_Holloman_AFB.jpg)


Even lockmart is not that dumb, they claim only 18000lb max ordnance weight.

In other words at full weapons load it becomes a $100 mil picrelate (albeit f35 is slower).

ef3d13 No.545387

File: 35a35c57a78afb9⋯.jpg (106.15 KB, 640x490, 64:49, F-16Blk15 at 15k.jpg)

File: cb4e7eb34402cab⋯.jpg (101.44 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, F35_external_weapons.jpg)




Its currently flying and they invented the math for stealth.

It's front aspect stealth is pretty good

Everything else is horrible.

It's stealth is not comparable with the F-22s or F-35's all aspect stealth. But for Russian Doctrine (get as deep into enemy territory and fuck shit up cleaving a path for front line bombers and infantry to move forward and flank the enemy to surround them and cut them off from logistics and reserves) it is just fine compared to the US doctrine (overwhelm the enemy's front lines and destroy them completely before bombers and ground forces hold the territory taken).

That being said, for Russian Doctrine, it doesn't have the numbers to pull of its intended role and it's only front focused stealth might not be enough for other countries (which was why India had second thoughts about the project, their military isn't particularly quality but they do want things to fulfill certain roles).

I think French Anon put it the best here >>512725


It was my mistake, a comparable F/A-18 (the Advanced Super Hornet) would cost more than the F-35A.

All in all, you end up with it costing only 5 million more for the regular F/A-18E/F

It's $75mil rather than the $100mil for the B and $122mil for the C

>Also other companies are massively increasing prices of their jets because they see Lockheed being granted a government monopoly selling a piece of shit for a hundred mil.

Eurofighter is having a hard time to keep being funded by the European Governments and the Rafale has a hard time getting buyers. Right now it's just Qatar. Does it also account for this thing called Inflation? Because the gains in price are less than inflation.

>If it uses those it becomes non stealth. And its performance is inferior to F4 Phantom

>Citation Needed

F-16 "loaded" for example maneuvers are pretty horrible with external stores other than just wingtip missiles. It also has a top speed of 1.2 Mach with external fuel pods.

So is the F-16 worse than the F-4? No, because the F-4 is horrible when it has other shit causing drag on it.

For fuck's sake, anything with more drag on it is less maneuverable, but saying it's worse than another fighter (when it's comparable to in between the F-16 and F-18 clean or with internal stores, nothing on external stores has been released as of yet).

>This failure in performance

[Citation Needed]

I do Agree it cannot replace the F-15 and it will not be as maneuverable as an F-16, everything else it can be replaced by it.

The F-16 however, might not be replaced. the USAF is thinking about replacing it's F-15Cs with F-16s


>and the failure in pricing

[Citation Needed] since it is STILL in low rate initial production the final cost per airframe hasn't come out yet


it depends on the F-35's role, if you need it to be more maneuverable you give it less fuel, need it to intercept, give it more fuel. (It's shitty but thank Obama for killing the F-22 since it was supposed to fill those roles that the F-35 and now F-16 have to fulfill).

I do think the USAF needs to reopen the F-22's production, it doesn't have an air superiority fighter in major numbers and have been using the F-16 for that role for a long time (because they refuse to upgrade the F-15Cs to the same standard as the new F-16 block 52s and such, the South Koreans and Arabs have more advanced F-15s than the US as a matter of fact).



it doesn't carry that much, it only carries around 18,000lbs.

Atleast use a decent comparison for your arguments. >>>512763

b5529e No.545395


Thats no different than F35, which has frontal stealth inferior to F117 and rear stealth comparable to 4.5+ gen jets.

Pakfa has superior thrust to weight, wing loading, top speed, altitude ceiling, payload, 3D tvc and way more control surfaces, and can take rougher airstrip conditions.

It has an internal cannon and will field LPI ramjet missiles, and already fields long range infrared missiles for anti stealth.

It has six AESA radar dishes: one x band frontal array, two x band cheek arrays, two l band wing arrays, and a j band rear stinger array.

It has a superior IRST QWIP that can track non afterburning targets frontally BVR, just by detecting adiabatic atmosphere heating, and is designed for air combat.

b5529e No.545397


>75 mil

>final cost per airframe hasn't come out yet

lol joke/shill post, never mind, i thought you were serious

ef3d13 No.545401


It has not you retard, it's still in low rate initial production.

The more they build over time the more the cost will go down.


>It has a superior IRST QWIP


>at can track non afterburning targets frontally BVR, just by detecting adiabatic atmosphere heating, and is designed for air combat.

So does the one in the Eurofighter and Rafale. It doesn't make it superior, we don't even know what resolution it has on the sensor itself.

ca28bc No.545415

File: 9c39b8c8044d346⋯.jpg (57.62 KB, 532x531, 532:531, 1435513204518.jpg)


>beast mode

I will never get over how gay the USAF is.

aa1023 No.545479

File: 4a02943c4a1d861⋯.jpg (43.45 KB, 640x427, 640:427, serveimage.jpg)


>Beast mode


>2x sidewinders.

>2x AMRAAMs.

>Implying it's good.

>It's less than a Rafale.

>Which is smaller.

>And has +33% that range despite having two engines.

Even if that picture is real (and it isn't even Lockheed numbers say 18k lbs not 22 https://web.archive.org/web/20110317113904/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35A-ctol-variant.html for A, the best one, of course) only normies would find it impressive.

960221 No.545524


>long range infrared missiles for anti stealth

That reminds me: can you program a simple ""AI"" to control an infrared homing missile so that it locks to a jet aircraft (instead of the sun), and then simply ignores chaff?

ef3d13 No.545535


That isn't AI, that's GIGO. It's just an IF ELSE Statement.

You can't have it simply ignore chaff, since Chaff and Flares work like "flash bang" and within that split second that aircraft already made a sharp turn and the missile has lost its target, its energy and either uses it's GPS to find out where it is in relative location to were it has been lost or just knows how far it has gone with its built in accelerometer.

tl;dr it's like trying to tell someone just blinded by a flashlight to the eyes and is also out of breath to chase down someone who stole a purse who is doing parkour on some rooftops.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / games / had / imouto / pdfs / rule34 / rzabczan / s / wai ]