[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / bbbb / hentai / hwndu / ita / maka / radcorp / vp ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
Its been four years! Happy anniversary!
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
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

>>512055

>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)

>>512056

>muh red white and blue


fa911b No.512062

>>512055

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.

>>512056

>Aerospace tech in US is still number one

How are your missiles?


eb7e70 No.512065

>>512056

>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

>>512055

>What NATO airforces actually need

>Interceptors

>CAS

>SEAD

>COIN

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

>>512055

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

>>512069

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

>>512071

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

>>512074

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)

>>512055

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)

>>512093

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

>Meanwhile at Lockheed Martin


6e3f8f No.512097

>>512093

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

>>512093

>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

>>512099

>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

>>512101

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


6e2196 No.512108

>>512093

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

>>512093

>>512097

>>512098

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.

>>512100

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.

>>512108

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


3583fe No.512176

>>512097

>>512098

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


cceb85 No.512185

>>512176

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


3583fe No.512188

>>512185

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)

>>512176

>>512188

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

>what the shit happened?

pic related


7ed02d No.512206

>>512117

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

>>512206

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


7ed02d No.512211

>>512207

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


ababdb No.512216

>>512055

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)

>>512074

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

>>512092

> so what is the F-35 vulnerable to?

A cache of Wasserfall SAMs rotting in a cave somewhere?


840797 No.512256

>>512216

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

>>512056

>1st reply

Lockheeb please…


eb7e70 No.512267

>>512206

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

>>512216

> 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

>>512074

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)

>>512185

>>512195

>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

>>512267

>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

>>512206

>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

>>512270

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

Most real fighters can do 9g sustained.

>>512273

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

>>512320

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

>>512282

>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

>>512108

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

>>512280

>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

>>512206

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

>>512422

>>512280

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


d043ea No.512438

>>512275

GUYS

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


eb7e70 No.512447

>>512335

>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)

>>512069

> 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

>>512451

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)

>>512453

>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

>>512451

>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

>>512460

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)

>>512451

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

>>512117

This, this, and this.


2016d9 No.512472

>>512464

>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

>>512473

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

>>512451

Look up MiG 1.44

Imagine it without skin, or control surfaces.

Now imagine J-22 without skin or control surfaces.


ac0920 No.512492

>>512486

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

Does anyone have a link to this study?


87caef No.512493

>>512488

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.

>>512496

Thanks.


ac0920 No.512508

>>512501

>>512496

Cheers mate.


87caef No.512509

>>512486

>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)

>>512463

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

>>512512

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.

>>512509

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)

>>512512

>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)

>>512519

Fuck.

I meant goatfucker

The difference is subtle,yet distinct.>>512519


ac0920 No.512523

>>512521

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)

>>512486

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)

>>512523

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

You know you want it bad boy.


c96c15 No.512534

>>512523

>>512521

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


87caef No.512553

>>512534

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


c96c15 No.512563

>>512488

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


ce968c No.512576

>>512534

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

>>512528

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

>>512533

>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

>>512621

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


ac4a47 No.512636

>>512621

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

>>512621

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

>>512624

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

>>512641

They just started offering the MiG-35 to order.


22ff02 No.512648

>>512206

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

>>512453

>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

>>512641

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


c96c15 No.512651

>>512643

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

>>512581

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

>>512649

>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

>>512653

>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

>>512659

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

>>512659

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

>>512057

>taking troll images serious


23d0a9 No.512665

>>512659

See

>>512661

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)

>>512636

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.

>>512639

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

>>512643

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

>>512669

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

>>512056

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)

>>512093

>>512097

>>512108

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:

https://www.ftm.nl/upload/content/files/IHS%20Jane%27s%20Jet%20Operating%20Costs%20White%20Paper%20FINAL%2013th%20March%202012(1).pdf

US Armed Forces Aircraft Operating Costs – August 2016:

https://rhk111smilitaryandarmspage.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/us-armed-forces-aircraft-operating-costs-august-2016/#more-5985

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):

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/dogfight.pdf

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

http://world-defece-review.blogspot.ae/2012/01/indian-mmrca-competition.html]


682585 No.512692

>>512056

t. (((lockheeb))) shill.


ac0920 No.512693

>>512683

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


eb7e70 No.512707

>>512659

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.

>>512653

And adversary EWAR is supposed to be worse.


8d044d No.512712

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>512688

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

>>512683

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


45d7a8 No.512720

>>512693

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


ac0920 No.512723

>>512720

>General Atomics

What do they make?


45d7a8 No.512724

>>512723

drones mostly


87caef No.512725

>>512688

>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

>>512725

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

>>512724

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


9e243c No.512754

>>512693

>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.

>>512719

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?

>>512725

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

>>512712

>>512725

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


87caef No.512763

>>512742

>>512759

>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

>>512763

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


87caef No.512773

>>512764

Same can be said for tanks or even rifles.


5f4437 No.512785

>>512763

>>512773

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

>>512805

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


6e2196 No.512836

>>512725

>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

>>512836

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


bbe24c No.512841

>>512805

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


0eefc7 No.512846

>>512836

>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

>>512725

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.

>>512836

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

>>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.

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

>>512841

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


840797 No.513113

>>512055

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)

>>513111

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


eb7e70 No.513133

>>513106

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)

>>512581

>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.

>>513133

>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

>>513141

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

>>513133

>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

>>513156

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

>>513156

>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)

>>513156

>>513180

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)

>>513206

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)

>>513156

>Ivan rolls his RADAR equipped tank, crushing the dish

>every Malaysian airlines flight in the world gets simultaneously erased


53b44d No.513235

>>512056

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)

>>512725

>16k mph

>insane reach

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

>>512785

I feel the same way about it here too.


eb7e70 No.513261

>>513180

>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

>>513243

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


f59fd7 No.513322

>>512659

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

https://youtu.be/MvGBS8XPNwc

Empty out the airframe, takeoff on low fuel.

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


4bf405 No.513328

>>512785

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

>>512840


4bf405 No.513329

>>513328

fuck

>>513328

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.

>>512840

THIS

This might even save the BRRRTTT from going silent forever.


2e8b0c No.513353

>>513336

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

>>513155

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


590d74 No.513358

>>513336

> 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

>>513340

>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

>>513340

>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.

>>513342

>…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

>>513347

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

>>513360

>>513363

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:

https://www.offiziere.ch/?p=30851

"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:

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2017/01/hardkill-aps-overview.html

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

>>513448

>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

>>513336

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.

>>513340

- 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

>>513504

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)

>>513437

>field

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

>>513523

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


eb7e70 No.513527

>>513523

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

>>513522

>>513525

http://www.rjlee.org/air/ds-aakill/By%20Range/

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

>>513645

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

>>513664

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

>>513674

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

>>513683

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

>>513688

>>513683

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

>>513689

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

>>513664

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

>>513701

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

>>513739

> 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

>>513770

>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

>>513645

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

>>513757

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

>>513789

>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:

https://defenseissues.net/2013/06/15/air-to-air-weapons-effectiveness/

"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

>>513774

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

>>513811

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

>>513816

>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

>>513816

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).

HAGAHAHHSHAGAHHAHAHAHASHSHSHSHSHAHAHAHAAAAAA

GET FUCKED


850980 No.513835

>>513816

>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)

>>513835

It's more of a technicality.


3499f7 No.513859

>>513828

>>513835

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:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bulgaria-cancels-helicopter-upgrade-contract-with-elbit-israeli-manufacturer-surprised-at-195547/

"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."

http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-print.pag?docid=22398240

"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

>>513828

>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

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/after-sukhoi-mistake-india-to-go-for-russian-5th-gen-fighter-only-with-full-tech-transfer/articleshow/57546519.cms

"…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."

https://thedefenstar.com/2017/08/07/mod-panel-recommends-indias-involvement-in-su-57-pakfa-development/

"…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

>>513931

>ToI, Defenstar.

>Credible sources.

Ahahahah.

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

>>513938

>ToI, Defenstar.

>Credible sources.

Ahahahah.

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-

57…

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

>>513954

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)

>>513971

>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)

>>513971

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.

>>513975

>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

>>513975

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

>>513971

>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).

https://www2.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/pepm_125.pdf

http://www.pircenter.org/media/content/files/11/13781899761.pdf

"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."

Also,

"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)

>>513981

>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

>>514039

>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

>>514056

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

>>514508

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

On DEW:

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)

>>514081

>>514082

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

>>514090

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

>>514090

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.

>>514098

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


a3921c No.514101

>>514098

>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

>>514099

>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

>>514039

>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.

>>514099

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)

>>514110

> 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

>>514141

>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

>>514099

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/here-s-the-first-shot-of-the-f-15c-pod-that-will-change-1750314539

"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?:

http://ultimaratio-blog.org/archives/5749


a3921c No.514166

>>514159

>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)

>>514141

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….

SUPERCRUISE

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

>>514194

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

>>514196

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

>>514200

>>514194

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

>>514202

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.

>>514194

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

>>514202

>>514205

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.

>Cheyenne

Key West agreement.


d5fddd No.514231

>>514219

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

>>514205

>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.

>>514194

>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

>>514234

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

>>514194

>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

>>514200

>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

>>514234

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

>>514234

>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

>>514234

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

>>514243

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

>>514236

Why was the YF_22 selected over YF-23?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-23-stealth-fighter-vs-the-lethal-f-22-raptor-who-14461

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

>>514252

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

>>514316

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.

>>514455

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

Switzerland?

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

>>514556

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


3499f7 No.514571

>>514455

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

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1648


dedee8 No.514580

>>514561

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


b4fe2f No.514582

>>514580

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

>>514571

Wow

Shes

Cute!


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

Bump?


d5fddd No.522016

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

>>516441

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


c7ad84 No.522041

>>512841

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)

>>516441

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


69bba7 No.522043

>>516445

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

>>522043

>PETA thrusters

???


69bba7 No.522069

>>522050

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

>>522250

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

>>516445

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

>>522351

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)

>>522351

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


788b44 No.522549

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>522351

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

>>522351

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


788b44 No.522554

>>522550

Would also explain its performance.


bfcece No.522570

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


69bba7 No.522581

>>522405

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

>>522581

> 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

>>522598

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)

>>522606

>>522598

>1.6 trillion for inferior product

>another 1.6 trillion to unfuck it

It will never stop being hilarious


69bba7 No.522647

>>522634

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

>>522634

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

Leafy as always.

Besides…

1.6 TRILLION DOLLARS


6ee754 No.522654

Fuck

>>522653

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

>>522655

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

>>522655

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)

>>522653

>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

>tfw

;_;

>>522655

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

>>522679

>a modernized F-20 tigershark with FSW

That's literally the X-29.


6ee754 No.522794

>>522679

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

>>522794

>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)

>>522798

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)

>>522798

>having more planes than enemy has AA missiles

Man,that thread was pure gold


33b442 No.522812


2c85aa No.522820

>>522804

>Give each pilot a carbine or SMG

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


33b442 No.522821

>>522804

This should be a vidya tbh. :^)


d5fddd No.522828

>>522821

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

>>522794

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

>>522842

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

>>tfw

>;_;

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.

WE COULD LITERALLY BE SHITPOSTING FROM FUCKING SPACE RIGHT NOW


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)

>jets

>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

>>522804

>>522820

>>522821

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

>>522828

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


8c5298 No.522870

>>522868

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

>>522870

>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

>>522872

>We are not in WW2.

Disregard that regarding Red Alert though.


8c5298 No.522876

>>522872

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

>>522876

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

>>522872

>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

>>522883

>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

>>522888

>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

>>522893

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

>>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.

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

>>522900

>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)

>>522812

>>522821

>>522798

>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

>>522843

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


2538e3 No.522935

>>522843

>WE COULD LITERALLY BE SHITPOSTING FROM FUCKING SPACE RIGHT NOW

>dealing with 1500-3000 ms ping

no thanks


959abc No.522942

>>522932

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)

>>522932

>>522935

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.

>>522942

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)

>>522942

Sure thing,if you want added Scorched Earth effect.

>>523004

Truly the worst timeline to be alive


0994cf No.523115

>>523085

Why don't they develop cruise missile bunker busters?


959abc No.523118

>>523115

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

>>523085

>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

>>523124

>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

>>523124

>plane is much more cheaper now

individually.

also learn's to spell you ofs nigger


a931d1 No.523140

>>522886

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


f140ab No.523200

R

U

S

S

I

A

N

S


f70aed No.523219

>>523136

Where's the spelling mistake you subhuman polack?


c70e1e No.523247

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

>>523140

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:

https://archive.is/LiJrS

>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

>>512069

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

>>523257

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


bf0a3b No.523264

>>523257

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

>>523258

lel


e9e4e1 No.523268

>>523264

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

>>523258

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)

>>523268

>>523268

Gotcha covered, third greatest ally.


bf0a3b No.523314

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

>>523268

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

>>523298

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


de74a4 No.523318

>>523314

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)

>>523318

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

>>523801

The Boeing one cause unlike Lockheeb they would actually deliver


7e2aac No.523810

>>523801

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.

X-32:

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

>>523811

Jew you once, shame on us

Jew you twice, shame on you


44df61 No.523830

>>523811

Lockheed "Deal paper planes, cash paper money" Martin


1b8a84 No.523848

>>523810

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…

>>523811

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?

>>523830

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


b15853 No.523878

>>523848

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

You funny guy, I'll rake you last.


7df2d8 No.524171

>>523848

> 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?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / bbbb / hentai / hwndu / ita / maka / radcorp / vp ]