[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bleached / choroy / christ / eros / g / metatech / vfur / xivlg ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

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: 40b7a89785c72ff⋯.jpg (41.6 KB, 480x480, 1:1, 34884621_452055501884906_3….jpg)

File: 832d751a796e7a4⋯.jpg (9.99 KB, 236x280, 59:70, 7476ae6300ea566fbe53eea2ac….jpg)

File: 00ca2eaa85d9cd9⋯.jpg (186.6 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, 25900597680_072922212c_b.jpg)

File: f66be5acf9fd870⋯.jpg (805.62 KB, 1300x1950, 2:3, su-34-20160524_gaf_rs66_03….jpg)

File: 1726f0b3f38d3de⋯.jpg (381.81 KB, 939x1200, 313:400, PEL-Sukhoi-Su-34-Fullback-….jpg)

809318  No.643359

Post your planefu.

Mine pic related

Da.

dedb19  No.643363

File: 8ecd531053cd09f⋯.jpg (101.05 KB, 1199x717, 1199:717, 1.jpg)

File: 972b35e3b215c9b⋯.jpg (169.99 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, 2.jpg)

File: bbb4951443970f3⋯.jpg (205.82 KB, 1024x780, 256:195, 3.jpg)

I know almost nothing about aircraft but pic related always looked breedable to me


10b1ea  No.643370

File: 1a3574735c3bcff⋯.jpeg (199.39 KB, 1200x903, 400:301, B'burn Bucaneer 1.jpeg)

File: e4f9e59949a33e0⋯.jpg (49.74 KB, 1024x682, 512:341, B'burn Bucaneer 2.jpg)

File: a8e85d860818b72⋯.jpg (412.95 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, B'burn Bucaneer 3.jpg)

>you will never fly below the deck height of a Sverdelov class cruiser at over 1000kmph.

>you will never drop a nuclear bomb in the middle of a Soviet naval squadron and speed away just in front of the shock-wave, rattling every rivet on the aircraft with manic laughter that lasts until you're presented with the anti-radiation meds back on the carrier.

>you will never complain about being given new anti-ship missiles because you can't fire them from a low enough altitude.

Why even live?


ffea1b  No.643392

>no one osting f20 tigershark thebest airplane in the world 1982 to 2042.


dedb19  No.643393

File: 13f51141530b03b⋯.jpg (147.39 KB, 612x371, 612:371, British superiority.jpg)

>>643370

>Why even live?

To shoot all shitskins in England by 2030, elect a right-wing 1488-tier government, become a highly-paid mercenary and genocide niggers in Africa, have 6+ beautiful white children, teach the boys how to hunt, skin their game, cook, survive in the woods, the basics of combat and how to be strong men, teach the girls the importance of motherhood and loyalty, grow old and die peacefully in your mansion surrounded by your lovely family that will continue your legacy and set the foundations for England's next massive empire.

If not you, then who?


716353  No.643394


2290b4  No.643409

File: 9cc23d950c33e7a⋯.jpeg (38.76 KB, 640x400, 8:5, tr3b.jpeg)

File: d021f0dce0916f4⋯.png (424.09 KB, 679x558, 679:558, 1544478291041.png)

File: 97ae4fd4d81e6bf⋯.jpg (550.53 KB, 1500x1105, 300:221, McCandlish-diagram.jpg)

File: 80c0c3e32c48685⋯.jpeg (15.71 KB, 300x300, 1:1, 80c0c3e32c48685f128f58f11….jpeg)

Plebs.


2ac7af  No.643410

>>643409

Delete this, it is too early to show them


02f4d5  No.643452

File: c1da52e5e0f05ee⋯.jpg (51.22 KB, 333x500, 333:500, c1da52e5e0f05ee1ae531443e6….jpg)

>>643409

Sucks that none of these actually exist.


b920e3  No.643457

>>643452

? But you're wrong.


2290b4  No.643460

File: 5c18017a71aefbf⋯.jpg (203.14 KB, 802x854, 401:427, 1491825360869.jpg)


10fef0  No.643461

File: 46218a6fa22b3a2⋯.jpg (41.2 KB, 750x713, 750:713, DxUqNsUX0AEDl83.jpg)

>>643452

>he doesn't know


02f4d5  No.643468

>>643461

I get it that LARPing is all the rage with kids these days. But it would actually be nice if shit like antigravity or antimomentum or basic warp drive existed and we could go to distant stars.


2290b4  No.643469

File: caebefbf538e355⋯.png (141.85 KB, 250x250, 1:1, 12eb10862290caafdf3bc20.png)

>>643468

>it would actually be nice if shit like antigravity or antimomentum or basic warp drive existed and we could go to distant stars.


10fef0  No.643476

File: 57bb6da11a998db⋯.jpg (110.2 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, Dw5S6THWkAALoPv.jpg)

>>643468

>But it would actually be nice if shit like antigravity or antimomentum or basic warp drive existed and we could go to distant stars.


02f4d5  No.643479

>all this larping

>>>/pol/

>>>/reddit/


03d925  No.643480

File: 6addd3519b9fb73⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 111.71 KB, 962x716, 481:358, French head of state macuc….jpg)

>>643479

>>643468

>>643452

>LARP

>kids

>/pol/

>(3)

>No contribution

I have spergook/muttspammer derangement syndrome now. Thanks.


0f642e  No.643496

>>643359

I am still sore there's no carrierborne version even though the concept prototype was a modified Su-33 trainer (Su-27IB).


7f5cad  No.643499

>>643457

>>643410

>>643460

>>643461

>>643469

>>643476

>>643480

How come no one bans these fuckers?

They are spamming.


2ac7af  No.643507

>>643499

Who is spamming?


7f5cad  No.643509

>>643507

The ones I quote.


2ac7af  No.643516

>>643509

I'm not spamming.


93cc8e  No.643527

File: 27e3561aee56040⋯.jpg (519.58 KB, 976x1199, 976:1199, Bulgarian_Air_Force_Mikoya….jpg)

File: 660182d0f8f3c24⋯.jpg (103.67 KB, 856x402, 428:201, 4477th_Test_and_Evaluation….jpg)

File: ac8d498323a2e68⋯.jpg (69.28 KB, 717x383, 717:383, 4477th_Test_and_Evaluation….jpg)

I don't even know why I like it.


b1f2df  No.643532

>>643516

OK, I check, you are not, the others definitely do though.


127731  No.643533

File: 40eb0e3feb3998e⋯.png (55.49 KB, 1023x820, 1023:820, 0172b99597b26c8c7fbe031b7c….png)

>>643532

>>643509

>>643499

>IP changed with every post


97d5ef  No.643536

>>643533

I'm under VPN for being stupidly permabanned.


b0d91e  No.643559

File: 74a3cf456d35530⋯.jpg (793.39 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, a8b2c58781b42f9b1157a50c79….jpg)

File: 2ef4514aff55358⋯.jpg (509.45 KB, 1880x1435, 376:287, 2ef4514aff55358309e3b5fdf7….jpg)


ffea1b  No.643564

>>643468

No joke but NASA is researching warp drive (White warp field interferometer), and China has reactionless trusters (EMdrive). EU wants to make antimatter, and god knows what Russia is doing.


a121c9  No.643569

File: 85017d631c66804⋯.jpg (21.13 KB, 400x400, 1:1, 85017d631c6680486ce6a6b6bf….jpg)

>>643564

And I read about the US arming their cruisers with laser weapons, is that true? Seems bullshit but still…


93cc8e  No.643578


2763ca  No.643590

File: 0f61c7a06da764d⋯.jpg (97.09 KB, 960x345, 64:23, IMG2087974102.jpg)

>>643564

>china researching EM drives

>doesn't have modern jet engine tech

lol


10b1ea  No.643598

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>643569

Lasers are pretty well understood, and the biggest problem with weaponising them (power requirements, size, tricky engineering/maintenance) are pretty much a non issue on most major warships (that are big enough for a nuclear reactor) they're the most likely place to see RL laser weapons actually happening. No lasguns, but for warships (and maybe, possibly, eventually) larger aircraft it'll probably happen over the next few decades.


bf7716  No.643599

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

I want to FUCK Swedish planes.


0b4e85  No.643603

File: 2112ce63cc007c5⋯.jpg (132.39 KB, 800x507, 800:507, 800px-Self-propelled_laser….jpg)

>>643598

Russians already had laser tanks in the '90

Step up your game wect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1K17_Szhatie


10b1ea  No.643607

>>643603

>Russian project designed to dazzle cameras

>Scrapped in '91 as "too expensive, ineffective, and unnecessary"

>Only two prototypes built, one scrapped, the other decommissioned and put into a museum

The Russians have claimed that they have new laser systems to 'jam tank command systems' but as the only source there is Russian politicians talking to Russian journalists I'd take that with a grain of salt. It's also a lot more of a long range electronic warfare system than a weapon.


02f4d5  No.643610

>>643564

I think they stopped research actually. They did the warp field experiment which was inconclusive, EM drive have been experimentally shown to be a misunderstanding that came from poor conditions of the initial experiment.


02f4d5  No.643611

>>643607

They probably mean microwave laser. Radio jamming systems have an entire branch of military in Russia, I would know I served in there. Most of these are just conventional high power radio jammers, pretty much all of them double as radiolocators and spoofers too.


a121c9  No.643622

>>643598

Seems breedy good, if V4 forms the United Army of Trashboys of Israel sry but had to we should get some of these for our Navy…


10b1ea  No.643627

>>643611

Sounds like you'd know more about it than I do then. From what I can read online it would seem that the US were working on a AMS style laser in 2014 (vid in my previous post) but don't seem to have done much with the concept after that; and Russia has claimed an undisclosed number of (as yet unseen) EW style laser systems and that they are working on ground based anti-missile/drone lasers (and a rumoured anti-satellite laser fired from a high altitude aircraft). Even if everything claimed about them is true it's probably going to be at least a decade or so (best case scenario) before they move from interesting research projects/propaganda pieces and are properly deployed though.

>>643622

>A multi-million dollar new weapon system is shipped to all US allies

>The 'M1 FREEDOM-RAY!!!' is a huge expense but is described as the future of warfare and an anti-everything superweapon

>High price is offset by removing the need for ammo (everyone keeps very quiet about the maintenance budget though)

>Weapons are completely disabled by a rainy day.

>and enemies carrying smoke grenades

>and crewmen enjoying a cigarette too close to the weapon

>Major scandal when soldiers of various nations are videoed using it to shoot birds soldiers statements that "they fall out of the sky already cooked!" turns out to be a weaker defence than the servicemen thought it would be


4fb3ef  No.643629

>>643627

Cooking dinner with a multi-million dollar military laser sounds like the most fun use for it.

I wish we spent millions of dollars on doing dumb yet fun shit instead of just plain dumb shit.


b467a4  No.643643

>>643598

Laser are extremely dubious as weapons, doubly so on ships.

The main problem is the humidity rate in the air, the tiny particles of water diffract light which leads to a terrible energy efficiency.

So while you can justify lasers for guidance or to blind sensors (lots of soviet/russian tech, DIRCM, etc…) because you don't need much to saturate extremely sensitive CCDs making it fairly certain it will works in all weather, the idea to use them as direct energy weapons is quite questionable.


b467a4  No.643651

>>643607

>he Russians have claimed that they have new laser systems to 'jam tank command systems'

It's not new it's one from the same program as >>643603

It's something that scan the terrain for optical glass and applies a pulse to everything it finds, it's an infantry system and it should work on everything, from ATGM launching units to tanks, possibly individual optics.

I've seen it demonstrated and it was offered to export in the late 90's early 2000's but I can't for the life of me remember what it's called.

No clue how prevalent it is or if they had even ordered some prior to recently, but it's not bullshit AFAIK (at least not completely).

Frankly tech-wise it's nothing more complicated than a IR scanner and a handful of high power laser pointers on a rotary mount plugged into a computer, but things don't have to be complicated to work.

Also the Missile Troops are getting the "Persevet" thing which no one really knows what it does (probably blinds KH satellites).


c3a2eb  No.643657

>>643651

>It's something that scan the terrain for optical glass and applies a pulse to everything it finds

Could you put some glass on the nose of a missile with some kind of a tracker behind it, so that it follows back that laser? Or program the turret of a vehicle to face directly the origin of that laser, so that it will target the source?


b467a4  No.643660

>>643657

Possibly.

Auto anti-laser guidance systems do exist, the problem is all of those relies on a CCD. No CCD nothing to feed the computer data so it would be a question of timed response.


dedb19  No.643661

>>643598

lasers are gay


10b1ea  No.643662

>>643651

>Also the Missile Troops are getting the "Persevet" thing which no one really knows what it does

Damn, so classified that the only search results I got for the thing were about a Russian naval steam barge from the mid 1800's. Are you sure that's the right name?

>>643657

Give enough engineers enough time and money (and good enough management to make sure it doesn't all go on something crazy/fun) and pretty much anything is possible. I can't see anyone putting much thought into that though - at the moment and probably for the foreseeable future all the contracts are going to projects for policing the hadjis.

>>643661

>lasers are gay

Meh, slightly temperamental, overly affected by environmental factors, but otherwise very useful with a lot of potential. I wouldn't say they were gay, but they've got a lot of growing up to do first.


b467a4  No.643666

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>643662

Пересвет


b467a4  No.643672

>>643666

>>643662

It's named after Alexander Peresvet a man from a more civilized era.

An Orthodox monk, he was a pious scholar of the Borisoglebsky Monastery latter a follower of St. Sergius of Radonezh (Patron Saint of All-Russia)…

Who fought in single combat for the Russian principalities as their champion against the Tatar champion, Temir-murza for the Golden Horde, at the opening of the Battle of Kulikovo (8 September 1380).

The duel ended in a draw with both dead, which lead to a battle, which the Russians won, securing independence from the Mongol Empire.


ffea1b  No.643677

>>643607

>The Russians have claimed that they have new laser systems to 'jam tank command systems'

Since the mid cold war, it's called a Shtora. Or maybe you mean DIRCM? They're been using those on aircraft since Afghan war.


b2c025  No.643710

>>643393

Jesus Christ Greece, that's not even OT, bring her down a notch.


cacc2c  No.643712

File: e6aed0548639625⋯.jpg (74.78 KB, 736x488, 92:61, A37.jpg)

>>643611

Just a little correction, a "microwave laser" is simply called a "maser" as its a microwave and not visible light. Changes the acronym and stuff.

Have an A37 as some kind of attempt to bring the thread back to discussing ace combat 7.


0f642e  No.643731

>>643712

Good taste.


02f4d5  No.643758

File: ac28ed368cfeeff⋯.jpg (30.03 KB, 604x340, 151:85, 1476802539211614607.jpg)

File: 93ad52beaa35b5f⋯.jpg (65.51 KB, 450x343, 450:343, 1434606022_7341429.jpg)

>>643627

Lasers and radiowaves in general have this amazing quantum property of ALWAYS being defocused, they diverge by very significant amount even in vacuum of space without any of the atmospheric scattering. You gonna need an absolute shitload of power to do any damage at ranges exceeding 5 km, so consider laser based weapons to be a meme waste of money for all eternity. You can however destroy sensitive equipment with modest amounts of power.

>>643657

It appears to be a commonly used technology. Radio jammer stations getting BTFO by homing missiles is a common problem. This is why typical mode of operation of such station involves scrambling and leaving the area in less than 10 seconds. Most vehicle-based systems can take off with their 20 meter tower still fully extended, and pack it up on the go. Those that don't have this capability are situated deep within friendly territory.


10b1ea  No.643770

>>643758

>You gonna need an absolute shitload of power to do any damage at ranges exceeding 5 km

So they have at least some potential for shipboard anti-missile use (no need to snipe some tank 100km away there). A point defence system that doesn't need to adjust its aim to lead the target would be an advantage, it would also be at the upper end of effective range compared to modern gun based CIWS systems, probably a lot cheaper than using anti-missile-missiles (on a '£s per kill' basis) over the life of the system as well.


02f4d5  No.643835

File: df067f421168fc7⋯.jpg (152.78 KB, 1280x730, 128:73, 1436214156688.jpg)

>>643770

>cheaper over life of the system

I wouldn't count on that. Just like conventional guns, lasers require repairs. They can degrade and fail and then you need to basically replace the entire thing, sans the housing.

Also, leading the target is completely trivial and is a non-issue whatsoever. I'm pretty sure it is also much cheaper and more reliable to use a minigun as anti-missile weapon than a laser.


02f4d5  No.643836

>>643835

Also lasers have this entire problem of "coat it with chrome to get 99.5% resistance" which you cannot do anything about.


8ef11c  No.643840

>>643836

Well, at least equipment would look pretty cool. I wouldn't mind a space-age shiny tank.


ffea1b  No.643909

>>643758

Don't forget that the best modern laser weapons are around 15% efficient.

That means for every 1000J poured in, 150J is turned to destructive laser energy, and 850J is turned into waste heat. In space this basically means you cook yourself before the enemy even feels it.

It only sort of works when you have infinity coolant (ocean) nearby, or you're a BIG vehicle shooting a relatively TINY vehicle.


1cd374  No.643996

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>643569

Wanna go down the rabit hole anon?

it already exist


10b1ea  No.644015

File: b0415f0a08fd101⋯.jpg (212.09 KB, 1600x812, 400:203, anti-laser Mig 21.jpg)

>>643840

Damnit Russia, were you one step ahead of us again in developing antilaser armour? :^)


0a48fc  No.644017

>>644015

I mean, they though the Space Shuttle was supposed to carry lasers into space before diving into the atmosphere to nuke Moscow.


95868c  No.644025

>>644015

Jokes' aside how effective against lazors would metallic shine be?


a121c9  No.644027

>>643996

Seems nice. Was it used in combat?


4eea68  No.644039

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>644015

It took me a while to realize that this is a scale model.

>>644025

Not at all.

The albedo of polished aluminium is 0.6 to 0.75, which means that only 40 to 25% of all visible light hitting the surface gets absorbed.

For comparison: a wall painted white reflects 80% and absorbs 20%.


dedb19  No.644040

File: 8905ea91a8062b8⋯.png (163.39 KB, 476x346, 238:173, festival of violence.png)

>>644039

>a wall painted white reflects 80% and absorbs 20%

<Burgers spend trillions on supah sekrit futuristic lasers

<They use them to shoot some shitskins' cars and campsites

<Shitskins just paint all their gear in white paint and become immune to the trillions in cost super laser gun

It will happen in our lifetime


d3ffee  No.644058

File: dd0450cf541f677⋯.jpg (500.33 KB, 1453x869, 1453:869, Rafale.jpg)

File: 6b20b4fa8be1bb1⋯.jpg (99.5 KB, 1600x1065, 320:213, rafale.jpg)

>>644040

>Shitskins just paint all their gear in white paint and become immune to the trillions in cost super laser gun

>white paint

Why are physics so anti-semitic?


db9e7a  No.644065

File: ab8309ed517acae⋯.jpg (196.62 KB, 885x1023, 295:341, 885px-Vulcan_Bomber_MOD_45….jpg)

File: 4caeaf0b584609f⋯.jpg (12.23 KB, 365x273, 365:273, AvroArrow1.jpg)

File: 48f7cbb5993827c⋯.jpg (4.63 MB, 4798x3199, 4798:3199, Buccaneer_62.jpg)

File: 116b6056433cd8e⋯.jpg (361.88 KB, 1200x800, 3:2, Tupolev_Tu-160,_Ukraine_-_….jpg)

>>644015

>were you one step ahead of us again in developing antilaser armour?

Anti-laser armor has been widespread since the 1950s, and was used on both sides. It's called anti-flash white. The exact same reason it protects against a nuclear flash will also make it effective against lasers.

Of course, these days we paint aircraft to absorb as much as possible, because of the stealth meme.


142c5e  No.644069

Su-34 has the cutest nose


10b1ea  No.644073

>>644017

Somewhere, in a better timeline, Space Shuttle Door Gunners are a real and respected MOS.

>>644025

Not particularly, at least in RL. As there's no such thing as a perfect reflector any surface will take some damage from the laser hit, and that damage makes the surface less reflective, which means the same energy will damage the surface more, which …..

At reflective, ablative, layer of armour could be useful to give you a little bit longer before you start taking damage to bits you care about. That's probably more useful for missiles than vehicles though. Smoke that's opaque at the lasers wavelength would do a much better job, if it became relevant.


b0f8b4  No.644081

File: bf15ed59300cd7b⋯.jpeg (47.69 KB, 960x852, 80:71, DB5CC77A-E804-430F-8F49-4….jpeg)

>>643536

Spergook, kill yourself. Also: reported.


2ac7af  No.644083

File: f66be5acf9fd870⋯.jpg (805.62 KB, 1300x1950, 2:3, su-34.jpg)

>>644069

*wompf*

>henlo anun :333

>anun I'm here tuu :PP


64fd13  No.644084

>>644083

>this is what happens when you lose


0895fe  No.644172

>>644083

Meh I wouldn't exactly complain…


10b1ea  No.644185

File: e826ab57f300611⋯.jpg (220.39 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, YUROFIETAH.jpg)

>>644083

>MURMA SERS ERMA REEL PLERN!!!!


ffea1b  No.644194

File: 6cec4bd6bfd34b4⋯.jpg (113.01 KB, 640x740, 32:37, yak-130bangladeshbuys.jpg)

>>644185

>hi there, would you mind terribly if we park our bombs next to you? in that convenient crater?


469f52  No.644198

File: 46b36e82b2112a1⋯.png (8.36 MB, 1854x2585, 1854:2585, ClipboardImage.png)

File: f8dc1fac79d6105⋯.jpg (174.34 KB, 1200x701, 1200:701, kawasaki group phot ki 61.jpg)

I love them all. I'd probably give it up to the IL-10 or Ki 61 since those are the planes I have flown the most in Il-2.


603de0  No.644211

>>643770

>probably a lot cheaper than using anti-missile-missiles (on a '£s per kill' basis)

That's really questionable.

One of Russia big advance in missile tech is the polymer fiber printing (weaving more like) the body for pantsir, kornet, etc…

I'm sure it was a pain to develop, but the result is they're very light (so very fast) and stupidly inexpensive to make since pyrotechnics aren't pricey to begin with.

And it works in the rain without having to hook it up to a nuclear reactor…


02f4d5  No.644248

>>644073

Metals don't tarnish under intense heat. Most of them will have their reflectivity increased after a certain point.


4eea68  No.644251

File: 1735dbc57fccb25⋯.jpg (1.62 MB, 2560x1920, 4:3, Panavia_PA200_Tornado_Form….jpg)

File: 89049fa1d44f75b⋯.jpg (194.75 KB, 1500x1174, 750:587, A_Tornado_F3_from_43_Squad….jpg)

>>644194

OKcool,canyourAAholdthesemissilesformeplease,kthxbye!


bff046  No.644253

File: c44c17fbd9e6c81⋯.jpg (31.5 KB, 430x268, 215:134, lolcatsdotcompy5gc6pdtdj34….jpg)


a121c9  No.644259

File: 0482de5c0cca565⋯.jpg (33.74 KB, 700x425, 28:17, mig-29.jpg)

We are apparently selling what little amount of Mig-29s we still had. Rip.


603de0  No.644263

>>644259

I'm sure you will be able to buy a F-35 right wing for them.

Let's hope you at least get a bunch of F-16V.


a121c9  No.644265

>>644263

>F-16V

Are those useful? Or are they just outdated stuff shipped to second world shitholes?


99b4da  No.644277

>>644265

In comparison to something none can afford to fly and use, certainly.


ffea1b  No.644296

>>644277

>>644265

>>644263

>>644259

Hungary can't afford to throw money away on sky knights. Just get a bunch of biplanes and throw barrel bombs out of them, the fuck is the point of having like two MiGs.


4eea68  No.644298

File: 06d44d930515570⋯.jpg (206.88 KB, 640x480, 4:3, image_popup.jpg)

File: f04644474566a53⋯.jpg (246.67 KB, 640x480, 4:3, image_popup0.jpg)

File: a4efbfc9f0b0fb3⋯.jpg (130.02 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-29G_(….jpg)

>>644253

Don't be stupid, Greekanon. The Bundeswehr inherited a lot of war material from the NVA in 1990.

Among tanks, APCs, IFVs, UAZs, AKs SPAAGs, SPAGs and an entire airforce.

We had so much stuff that we didn't know what to do with it, so at first we tried to find ways to use it. But you could only blow up so many tanks for training purposes.

Then we began selling them. But how should you sell and entire navy? Who could afford a navy all at once?

So then we just gave shit away for free. Most of the US test stock of MiGs, Hinds and so on came from the DDR's collapse.

And we still have stuff leftover. Truckloads of AKs and SKS' in storage. I got to look at entire rooms of old AKs, entombed in cosmoline for all eternity. Feels good to know that we could arm our army about three times over with old ammo to spare if shit ever really hits the fan hard.

And that's not even all of it. After 1990 we never properly took stock of anything.

The only thing that happened was that each type of object was classified into three categories:

I: we can use it and we will keep it

II: we can use it for some time, but eventually it will be III

III: we can not use it. Sell it or throw it away.

Everything was so rushed that we just rolled over to their garrisons, talked to the commanders for a while, and then told them to leave the keys on the desk. We took down their flags with some music, and that was about it.

I know it's fucked that I say "we" and "they", but it honestly feels like it.

We also accepted about 5 percent of the competent soldiers, the rest was laid off and received a very small pension. Those who got accepted were mostly maintenance crews.

Anything that was not nailed down was stolen. All the east German shit you have on the US market, all the SKS', pouches and helmets? Stolen or sold from storage. Remember that these guys had months to plan, hide and move equipment they wanted to keep for themselves.

The NVA had six active divisions and 7 reserve divisions with equipment 100% in storage, the modern Bundeswehr has trouble maintaining two regular divisions.

The NVA had two entire regiments dedicated to maintaining and constructing roads, and one regiment to maintaining and constructing bridges, plus their normal pioneering battalions. All with full equipment and fuel.

The NVA had 131 warships and >40 support vessels, and more than 100.000 wheeled vehicles plus 300.000 tonns of ammunition.

And that doesn't even mention the heavily militarized police force too, or their boarder guards. The entire affair was a mess. We threw around equipment left right and center, and we still have shit left over.

A single MiG is nothing to us. We sold 22 to Poland for next to nothing because they were rusting away.


a121c9  No.644306

>>644296

We should had repair and upgrade those Migs anyway. They could had come handy in the coming eradication of gipsies. They could also be used in bullying migrant shitskins. But alas, this is what happens when you let your country ruled over by a bunch of oligarchs…


10b1ea  No.644309

File: 8b839ad4cc4d90c⋯.jpg (238.42 KB, 1728x1152, 3:2, Mi 24 is best 24.jpg)

>>644306

>They could had come handy in the coming eradication of gipsies. They could also be used in bullying migrant shitskins

Wouldn't something like this be far more effective AND economical in that role?


979af4  No.644311

>>644296

You are absolutely correct, we'd be better off with AA.

>>644309

Even that is a waste. If we wanted to eradicate them, we'd have plenty of volunteers for the death squads. Damn, we wouldn't even have to pay them, and they'd organize their own transportation. All they'd need is some surplus arms and ammunition.


10b1ea  No.644316

>>644311

Nice dubs, in that case couldn't the Hungarian government just issue a general hunting licence for 'insert group here'? No bag limit, add on a state subsidy for sporting arms/ammo to make things easier for the hunters, as much as you'd probably get a large number of foreign nationals interested in a deal like that make them pay a (reasonable) fee for their permit to help offset the subsidy for citizen arms. No need for surplus, and it should bring in some good business for the Hungarian firearms production/retail sectors.


cf3136  No.644317

>>644311

I'd give them whatever they wanted.


a121c9  No.644323

>>644309

We already have that, although not too much.

>>644311

Yeah but never get rid of "okay"-ish weapons if you already have them.

>>644316

Frankly, we should make several militias of border patrols, give them some basic training, some guns and equipment and settle them along the line of our southern borders. Any shitskin trying to cross the border would be shot down. Our army and police could then handle the gipsies…


3dc8c5  No.644354

File: e5fe8b176da263b⋯.jpeg (731.87 KB, 1920x1250, 192:125, e5fe8b176da263bfbeca76a4a….jpeg)

File: e45304b398621ea⋯.jpg (112.96 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, jogos_ace_combat_5.jpg)

File: 528d00e055d8be4⋯.jpg (385.25 KB, 1600x1067, 1600:1067, 1458927559466-1.jpg)

File: 387d5681930e6cd⋯.jpg (1.13 MB, 3000x2394, 500:399, eb01833b6c7a86d858883ce27d….jpg)

I always liked swing-wing jets.


4eea68  No.644366

File: c9628799f376966⋯.pdf (3.28 MB, ThinkingObliquely-ebook.pdf)

>>644354

You are either going to throw up or cum buckets. Maybe both.

I personally think it's quite sexy and could have very minimal applications for landing approach with strong crosswinds, or gliding bombs.


0f2621  No.644368

CEASE TALKING ABOUT PLANES

THIS IS NOW AN AMERIMUTT HATE THREAD

DISCUSS ONLY YOUR HATRED FOR AMERIMUTTS


0895fe  No.644374

>>644368

But plane good!


4eea68  No.644380

File: f8ea6965abeafe9⋯.jpg (1.84 MB, 6016x3764, 1504:941, AIRPOWER 16.jpg)

>>644368

No.

This thread in one picture.


d3ffee  No.644392

File: 0af55157a1beef6⋯.png (1.73 MB, 1731x1227, 577:409, f35_v2.png)

File: 058af7a8c3ba521⋯.jpg (2.89 MB, 3000x2357, 3000:2357, F-35B.jpg)

File: d226c55fc6e30ae⋯.jpg (633.85 KB, 1920x1200, 8:5, flat as a pancake with ver….jpg)

File: d99c0cd0f630911⋯.png (5.39 MB, 3200x1680, 40:21, fortnite-35.png)

File: f7c6bf1dabe096c⋯.jpg (118.41 KB, 300x1067, 300:1067, This is what Lockheeb actu….jpg)

>>644368

>mutt hate thread

Ok then.


0895fe  No.644404

>>644392

Sopwith Camel would beat F-35 in dogfight


4eea68  No.644406

>>644392

We all know the F35 is a shit. Don't overuse that joke please, or it will have to go into maintenance.


d3ffee  No.644410

File: 19cb7a88f36ac44⋯.png (453.11 KB, 894x894, 1:1, e_102_gamma_render__advent….png)

>>644404

The F-35's targeting supercomputer would probably get confused at the sight of a biplane, decipher the grand unified theory in attempt to get a bead on the unknown target followed by shooting a missile at itself to end the suffering.


4eea68  No.644412

>>644410

>not interpreting the biplane as two planes flying in close proximity

>not shooting two missiles at the same target

>not making the missiles collide in midair

>not making the computer fire another pair of missiles immediately

It's like you don't work at the plant producing the missiles.


d3ffee  No.644414

>>644412

>not forcing the pilot to go in for guns after wasting all of its 2 internally carried missiles

>not having the airplane overheat from maneuvering while the off-center cannon misfires, jams and cooks off its ammo as the pilot is trying to figure out which of the 5 radar gunsights displayed on the HUDs is displaying a valid lead on target

>not having the resulting disaster lead to the creation of a $500 billion mandatory upgrade package from Lockheeb for all F-35s sold


c2b36c  No.644419

File: a8a2773da98afdd⋯.jpeg (3.32 MB, 3008x2000, 188:125, 6E83E2DC-ABBF-4592-AE45-7….jpeg)

File: b3e29660e169603⋯.jpeg (90 KB, 1000x800, 5:4, 841E1834-44BF-4B79-B874-3….jpeg)

File: 3265f376645635e⋯.jpeg (378.19 KB, 1280x677, 1280:677, BC4D6961-FEE0-4933-8E4E-0….jpeg)

File: c1ec5a349a5f5c5⋯.jpeg (48.16 KB, 1486x939, 1486:939, 12A79011-0D33-4A12-BB2C-5….jpeg)

File: 2c39c97475e5f01⋯.jpeg (537.21 KB, 1500x1000, 3:2, 54FB3D19-2327-4295-A766-D….jpeg)

>>643359

These qts


10b1ea  No.644426

>>644366

>See the design on the front cover

>Feel immediately disgusted

>Page 1 of 127

Can you give us a tl;dr? How is that monstrosity anything other than an escaped nightmare?


4eea68  No.644435

>>644426

It's a testbed NASA built to figure out what kind of advantages and challenges planes with oblique wings would face.

Basically some guy said:"if planes could fold in their wings they would take up less space on the taxi-way and they could make final approach with harsher crosswinds, How hard could it be to build and fly one?"

And NASA, because it consists of a bunch of autists, took that rhetoric question literally and decided to build a test aircraft to test those wing configurations.

Turns out that NASA has a bunch of very competent engineers, and everything turned out better than expected.

However the mechanism to turn the wings reliably and ensure that nothing moves when it is not meant to do weighs a whole lot and it would be a massive waste to put it on an aircraft that doesn't really need it that badly.

The entire foldable wing mechanism of the is based on this plane.

Also: READ NIGGER, READ!


0895fe  No.644439


2de673  No.644594

File: 0a44f9cfee0e061⋯.jpeg (339.46 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, 7631C2AE-CDFA-4A3B-8395-6….jpeg)

File: 208d6feb5ddcd62⋯.jpeg (162.94 KB, 1486x991, 1486:991, ABD3B3B1-D3AF-468F-8FBA-C….jpeg)


ffea1b  No.644610

>>644419

>>644594

HURR AGENT KEVIN WE ARE GOING TO MEASURE HOW PRO-RUSSIA THE IMAGEBOARDS ARE

YOU GO TO THE DOMESTIC TERRORIST IMAGEBOARD AND POST A BUNCH OF AIRPLANE PHOTOGRAPHS WITH THE CODE KEY

GOOGLE BOT CRAWLERS WILL TELL US IF THE IMAGES ARE DOWNLOADED AND USED SOMEWHERE ELSE.

tip lel


dd166f  No.644611

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Can post carfu?


d3ffee  No.644615

File: 8e66e3914a05c0e⋯.jpg (1.69 MB, 2048x1536, 4:3, Mercedes-benz 540k.jpg)

>>644611

>carfu


dd166f  No.644622

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>there is enough space to stand up, stretch and squat in airplane


dd166f  No.644625

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>644615

No racemixin pls


dd166f  No.644626

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>644615

JJ, absolutely patrician


4eea68  No.644636

File: 01eafcf388091a0⋯.jpg (2.22 MB, 4060x3060, 203:153, Mercedes-Benz_320_SL_(R129….jpg)

File: 7865d154563948f⋯.jpg (280.02 KB, 1575x987, 75:47, Mercedes_W202_front_200803….jpg)

File: 4fae1f61017729d⋯.jpg (4.33 MB, 3608x1932, 902:483, 2005-2008_Volkswagen_Polo_….jpg)

File: 0a07cb63559952d⋯.jpg (183.57 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, SWP2014-0026.jpg)

File: 295bc68a2c577a3⋯.jpg (1.82 MB, 3324x2508, 277:209, Mercedes-Benz_G-Wagen_(373….jpg)

When it comes to Mercedes-Benz, I prefer the classics. Light wipers are cute. CUTE

Also: my Carfu. VW Polo IV gen. 2; 5 door version.

Take off the roof and remove the backseats an you got a good lil' pickup for TOYOTAing innacity.

Leave the roof and backseats in and you got a small, fuel efficient, and sporty little car that can accelerate like a a fa/tg/uy running for the toilet after painting IG for ten hours straight.

Ignore anything after gen. 4. The car itself is still good, but the internals aren't nearly as comfy anymore.

Another top quality car: Mercedes Benz G-class.

Civillian version use filters, but you can take those off easily :3

Newer versions look more sturdy, but are essentially the same car with more plastic bits tacked on.


ffea1b  No.644647

>>644636

Crown vic is the last good western car, it just needs a upgraded engine.


57f0b0  No.644661

File: 03a942feaa9423d⋯.png (1.16 MB, 1200x823, 1200:823, ClipboardImage.png)

>we have to defend the Fatherland, Onii-chan!

>y-you won't ever leave me, right?

>Führer-sama said death before dishonour!


716353  No.644688

>>644423

>>644610

That's an iPhone filename you dumb shits. Do you think that every image named "ClipboardImage.jpg" is also a tracker?


ee6354  No.644689

File: c1126d92cb68a20⋯.jpg (95.76 KB, 912x668, 228:167, Mercury-Marauder-2.jpg)

>>644647

Pic related is basically a Crown Vic with a Mustang engine.


ffea1b  No.644704

>>644688

I would call it a copy, although I agree it was a stellar vehicle. It's just been discontinued because the factories in mexico couldn't handle that level of quality and all support was cut for them.


603de0  No.644747

>>644265

>Are those useful?

Exact same tech as the F-35 without the stealth gimmick related BS, with the ability to turn/climb/fly possibly better than anything else in it's class (composite wings and fuselage elements better engine than older ones, etc…) and with an extremely mature ordnance kits & tech integration (A2A, A2G, A2S), all of it at a ridiculously low cost.

I love our Mirages but there is no doubt this version of the F-16 is a step above.


d3ffee  No.644752

>>644747

But it doesn't have canards.


bdbb54  No.644849

File: 970fccbf2f10b7b⋯.jpg (3.22 MB, 3840x2400, 8:5, saab drak1482352556679.jpg)

File: 0510ab09fd9788d⋯.jpg (1.79 MB, 1920x1280, 3:2, saab drak1482239081898.jpg)

File: 450e8006b062e01⋯.png (326.57 KB, 4000x1765, 800:353, saab-35-draken.png)

File: 31338281f70ff28⋯.jpg (158.17 KB, 1023x774, 341:258, saab-j-35-draken.jpg)

Obsoleteand Swedecuck, but without doubt the most beautiful planform.


af5da9  No.644851

File: 228b11f8fa0a985⋯.gif (365 KB, 240x320, 3:4, wankelenginegif.gif)

>>644647

>needs an upgraded engine

Why would you take something that is so reliable and durable and replace one of the key components of why 99% of US police used them and still do for 30+ years? If the engine must be upgraded stick an old american big block in it.

>>644689

>a mustang engine

that's pretty vague my dude, there are lots of different options for engines in mustangs. I mean hell there are 5.0L V8 fastbacks that are pushing 30 less HP than a 4.6L V8 crown vic engine

im a car and motorcycle fag sorry


af5da9  No.644852

File: c9370b3bb5d6013⋯.jpg (1.26 MB, 1532x1000, 383:250, Viggen.jpg)

>>644849

>not viggywiggy


57f0b0  No.644853

>>644851

The 4.6 in the Crown Vic from 92-12 was basically the same as the one in the late SN95 Mustangs. Bit of difference in valve timing but it generally met or exceeded the numbers being pushed by anything but the high end GTs.


1ede64  No.644855

File: e4e21ce4252018a⋯.jpg (71.22 KB, 562x433, 562:433, go-be-fat-somewhere-else.jpg)

>>644849

Excellent.

>>644852

pic related


af5da9  No.644858

File: 5cb6142fe15ae82⋯.gif (322.07 KB, 350x344, 175:172, X-engine.gif)

>>644853

Exactly, why replace something so time tested and durable with something else with the same specs?


89dd6f  No.645154

>>644849

How well would these perform with a modern avionics suite+TVC?


770328  No.645157

>>645154

If you happen to have radar dominance you could probably stick some modern missiles on there and deal with any modern aircraft just fine. As with most early jet fighters they were overcomplicated where they should have been simple and were hence quite pricey to maintain and probably not too cheap to fly. Which is to say, you might as well be using something modern.

They are decently fast with a top speed of around Mach 1.8 which isn't a bad result even today faster than F-35 still kek and would probably be entirely sufficient for defence roles.

Definitely a bit of a thicc bitch though, it probably would show up on enemy radar really easy.


53ea05  No.645162

File: 4a2de320d2369cb⋯.jpg (674.26 KB, 1600x1067, 1600:1067, Draken.jpg)

>>645157

>it probably would show up on enemy radar really easy

So the opening phase includes waves of Draken carrying anti-radiation missiles, taking that concern out of consideration without needing major investment in EW or completely redesigning the aircraft to improve it RCS.

>Definitely a bit of a thicc bitch

Fuck you, she's beautiful.


1cc2ca  No.645168

>>643569

I know the navy has started seriously on railguns in some capacity.


770328  No.645171

>>645168

I thought that project was shelved.


191c8c  No.645179

>>645154

>modern avionics

I hate to break it to you, strelok, but there isn't really anything modern about modern avionics.

Flight control computers have existed since the '90s and have been slowly implemented in almost every older plane that lacked them during major upgrades.

They are insanely useful for preventing pilots from doing retarded shit and getting a plane crashed because of hypoxia effects include lack of judgement and euphoria, but unless your plane is designed to be aerodynamically unstable (and thus requires them to fly and employ controlled stalling for manouvering) like the Eurofighter or Rafale, they won't add anything to the performance.

A couple new ideas (like simulating special manouvers that are very risky and allowing the FCC to perform them under certain circumstances, or allowing the aircraft to go to it's absolute safe limits depending on fuel/weapons load, air moisture, pressure and airspeed) are slowly being implemented on some aircraft, but it costs a lot to run the necessary simulations at the necessary level of accuracy to fully implement them for every old plane from every third world nation.


89dd6f  No.645187

File: 65b28f7ffd696f9⋯.png (405.39 KB, 648x1109, 648:1109, here comes the snow.png)

>>645179

I know modern avionics aren't as modirn as they claim to be, but I recon they should still be somewhat of a necessity for properly implementing a 3D thrust vector control nozzle.

Would you a supermaneuverable Draaken outfitted with an LPI AESA Radar, IRST, off-boresight helmet cueing and souped up AIM-54s?


951bed  No.645320

>>644354

It will be a crime against aesthetics if the F-14 is withdrawn from service before some of them are paint old burgundy.


951bed  No.645330

File: 68639638596f5d2⋯.png (946.04 KB, 1400x5552, 175:694, do not learn mandarin.png)

>>643590

>implying not having the tech is the actual issue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer


c70b79  No.645458

>>645330

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer

Why link to that? China still has the third fastest supercomputer in the world.

Fair enough, it can never be the fastest or most power efficient because China can't produce <20nm transistors yet since the US obviously doesn't want them to have access to that technology and only Intel, a few Korean companies, GlobalFoundries and TSMC can manufacture them but semiconductor research takes decades to catch up to the cutting edge.


ee6354  No.645462

>>644851

It's the 4.6L DOHC. Stock power is ~300hp.


951bed  No.645466

>>645458

Was pointing out that China has the technology. If you read the image you'll realize the reason their engines and aeronautic material suck is most probably because chinks are jewing each other.


c70b79  No.645468

File: 5684b51d3a14697⋯.webm (3.19 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, WOW!!! f35 Lightning II ….webm)

>>645466

Eh, with the military there it's probably an entirely different beast since the PRC is brutal and will execute anybody they feel like and all the companies are state owned.


702576  No.645492

>Since the US obviously doesn't want them to have access to that technology and only Jews, lots of Gooks, somes nips, a single burger company and Chinks can manufacture them.

Yeaaaah… Somehow I don't see the US succeeding in that.

>Intel's First 10nm Processor Lands In China.

>Intel's much-anticipated, and oft-delayed, 10nm processors have popped up in a Lenovo Ideapad 330, which is a low-end notebook that comes with 4GB of memory and a 500GB HDD, at Chinese retailer JD.com.

https://archive.is/sNXt1

China has lot of production problems but when it comes to R&D they're the ones closest to discover FTL technology simply because they have more researchers than everyone else put together, they're bound to catch up just by the sheer numbers of monkeys in front of a typewriters they can put out.


a4a3fa  No.645493

>>645492

Since the US or the Western world do not even TRY at all.


70aaf0  No.645496

>>645493

If only the westerners would genocide the shitskins, kikes, and cucks that support them.


a4a3fa  No.645506

>>645496

Sometimes I look back at the Moon Landing and wonder what the fuck are we fucking doing right now compared to the 50s-60s.

inb4 it's fake


702576  No.645593

>>645506

>inb4 it's fake

That's the thing, people think it's fake because technology as a whole has stagnated, even regressed in some domains (the US can't do a manned moon landing without restarting basically from scratch), only digital tech is knowing a real push (but even that has largely plateaued).


1ddb93  No.645626

>>645492

Please don't post about shit you have no idea about. I'm talking about domestic production of <20nm chips, not American companies selling them to China. Reverse engineering modern silicon is near impossible, so Chinks having access to modern consumer chips is no issue.


702576  No.645634

>>645626

> I'm talking about domestic production of <20nm chips

>domestic production

You're talking of shit that is widely produced in Asia (and Israel).

There is barely any microelectronics production in the west, what the western companies do are the designs, when it comes to mass production (so having the machines and factory lines), almost ALL of it is done in Asia and that has included microprocessors for a fucking while now.

China has both Chinese (SMIC) production of <20nm and offshored (Samsung/Apple/Micron, etc…)

https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20190130VL200.html

That ship has sailed years ago.


68d2d7  No.645653

>>645634

>Asia

Only really Korea and Taiwan, both US friendly. All that article says is that there is a possibility that they may start being able to produce 14nm this year. Nothing certain yet and they will keep being two steps behind since IBM has 5nm and TSMC and Intel are focusing on 7 and 10nm.

Honestly, the US should just consider killing the CCP by now. If they got serious, they could do it in a year.


bb912d  No.645723

>>645593

>(but even that has largely plateaued)

This. I was thinking to replace my one-and-a -half decade old PC with the cheapest in the market and realized that specifications were only marginally better and at points even lower than my old one. Back in the 90s computers got antiquated within a couple of years.


d59714  No.645737

>>645154

Adding TVC means you have to rewrite the entire flight program and probably means more stress on airframes which have only a few hundred hours left on them, max. Might as well go with a new design at that point.


84fca6  No.645754

>>645737

The Idea behind it is to reuse slightly modified existing airframe/airfoil designs with modern tech inside rather than spend trillions of dollars on a brand new abomination.

How expensive would it be to manufacture a basic Draaken airframe using modern metallurgy and other manufacturing techniques in CY+4?


1de4a1  No.645805

File: 25ba0d41936cee6⋯.mp4 (952.6 KB, 320x568, 40:71, mSPufKSO4uyMLWer.mp4)


191c8c  No.645806

File: d62b330fc12ec73⋯.pdf (5.68 MB, 1004268.pdf)

>>645754

>How expensive would it be to manufacture a basic Draaken airframe using modern metallurgy and other manufacturing techniques in CY+4?

>manufacture a basic Draaken airframe using modern metallurgy and other manufacturing techniques

>using modern metallurgy and other manufacturing techniques

God I hate this meme.

There is no "modern metallurgy". We have used Al2014 and Al2024 since WWII. INCONEL was developed in the 1940s and guess what? Compound fibers are

a) not metals, thus not metallurgy

b) one of the oldest construction materials known to man

See prehistoric spears, axes and arrows: Sinew+resin+stick+rock.

Even if you, in your severe retardation, used "modern metallurgy" to mean "compound fibers", you would still be a massive fucking faggot.

1) Compound fibers are extremely bad at taking stress from any direction other than the fiber direction (-90% at 6°for carbon fibers).

2) Fibers can't be connected easily using screws, bolts and rivets.

3) Fibers can't be machined into shape.

4) Fibers require completely different maintenance (extremely high cost inspection using interferometry).

This means that you have to design a fiber-replacement part with

1) a different shape to take stress along fiber direction only

2) different connection methods, mostly gluing or tufting

3) different production methods in mind (this is both an advantage and disadvantage)

4) a different maintenance plan

This means that a plane built with "modern" materials would look differently, have a different internal structure, have a different weight distribution, and completely different characteristics. It would be a different plane. And that's good, because if you were to replace aluminium parts with fiber parts without considering the above your design would either fail before construction is finished, or immediately upon rollout. It would also cost a lot more and be completely useless.

If you want to use fiber materials you have to completely redo the structure, which means redoing the entire plane. Sure, you could build an airplane that looks at least similarly to a Draken on the outside, but which uses compound fibers on the inside, but what would be the point? Spending millions on redesigning an aircraft, and then spending many more millions on producing it while not fully using the potential of fiber compounds is, without any hyperbole, stupid. It would be a waste of money. You can still build those planes.

You can change out older parts for more expensive ones to improve performance, but unless you are using a 40+ year old turbine there is no reason to change most of the parts. And the only reason why we can still upgrade engines is because designing a turbine engine is a work of art and wizardry. And making a single prototype can cost billions, slowing down development a lot.


bb912d  No.645807

>>645806

If there were no notable metallurgical breakthroughs since WW2 then why can't China build a functional low bypass turbofan even though they have hundreds of perfectly working post-Soviet engines to reverse engineer down to the molecular level?


bb912d  No.645811

File: 34d09251e32697c⋯.jpg (28.52 KB, 768x200, 96:25, NAPO-Su-34-Dumb-Bomb-Drop-….jpg)

File: f1307130b58d26b⋯.jpg (67.97 KB, 1024x676, 256:169, 2d9f9afa457474e37dded997fc….jpg)

File: 42d933507f9591b⋯.jpg (12.19 KB, 398x223, 398:223, su-27ib2-prev.jpg)

File: c51c3f4c407049f⋯.jpg (12.48 KB, 398x218, 199:109, su-27ib-prev.jpg)

File: 5bd64ef4f08bc8b⋯.jpg (7.32 KB, 309x163, 309:163, images (3).jpg)

>>643359 (OP)

Has the production Su-34 frontal RCS-reduction curvature? because the 90's prototype (Su-27IB) had similar cockpit/duckbill configuration but I'd swear it was noticeably more pointy.


4bdbf4  No.645813

>>645807

Because the chinks like to jew one another by selling shitty quality parts or metal and putting things together in a have assed way as long as they can get some dosh out of it.


191c8c  No.645814

>>645807

I have no idea about China. My guess is that they are incompetent and don't understand that you can't build cheap turbine engines and are trying to cut corners.

You can not cut corners when it comes to metal spinning super fast at temperatures hotter than an acetylene-oxygen torch.


f6b70e  No.645818

>>645807

They can build them they can't mass produce them.

Quality control and repeat-ability on mass scale is the biggest hurdle, because you need a bunch load of people doing their job perfectly.

There is a dozen places on the planet that make turbofans, less than that for fighters (afterburners) engines.

China has 3 (3 fighters), the US have 2 (2 fighters), Russia has 3 (2 fighters), France has 1 (1 fighters), UK has 1 (1 fighters), Germany has 1 (0 fighters), Japan has 1 (0 fighters) and India has been struggling to get 1 for 30 years (despite foreign assistance of everyone) and still doesn't have any.

The fact that China does have working 3 homemade turbofans made in by 3 different companies, even if less performative, after only a TEN YEARS program (before 2000 all they did was buy Russian ones, they started the R&D in 2000 and had prototypes around 2005-2006 reached mass prod by 2010) is nothing to scoff at.


45e083  No.645820

File: eb32a8a8316f45a⋯.jpg (192.84 KB, 950x721, 950:721, Boeing X-32 5.jpg)

File: f548f83e7d6987c⋯.jpg (271.81 KB, 950x1188, 475:594, Boeing X-32 9.jpg)

File: 6da83e83cca6426⋯.jpg (72.28 KB, 950x747, 950:747, Boeing X-32 3.jpg)

File: 0aa746b4ddda2b9⋯.jpg (44.13 KB, 602x239, 602:239, BoeingX32JointStrikeFighte….jpg)

>>644392

>When after two decades of development and unimaginable expenses you turn into everything for what your competitor was rejected and even more

Was the Monica vindicated?


bb912d  No.645822


84fca6  No.645825

>>645820

>that belly profile

I bet if the X-32 reached production it'd have a lower RCS than the F-35 of our timeline.


bb912d  No.645826

>>645825

And it would be beautiful.


45e083  No.645831

File: 23c6dfe5f6c4a6e⋯.jpg (536.77 KB, 1280x943, 1280:943, YF-23.jpg)

File: 32d410895aa8a2d⋯.jpg (297.82 KB, 1800x1205, 360:241, YF_23_front.jpg)

File: fc58403b09894d9⋯.jpg (71.58 KB, 1500x1125, 4:3, yf-23 7.jpg)

File: 383cf251490b2b8⋯.jpg (1.86 MB, 2100x1500, 7:5, yf-23 rear.JPG)

File: 34d7d660d18a1a0⋯.jpg (119.91 KB, 1068x851, 1068:851, YF-23-Black-Widow-II-1068x….jpg)

NEVER EVER

>>645806

>This means that a plane built with "modern" materials would look differently

That's retarded. Aerodynamics have nothing to do with internal structure, and planforms can be scaled up and down with minimal change. That's how wind tunnel modeling works.

>Even if you, in your severe retardation, used "modern metallurgy" to mean "compound fibers", you would still be a massive fucking faggot.

Using a tried and tested planform means you already know were the stresses are coming from. Duh.

>If you want to use fiber materials you have to completely redo the structure, which means redoing the entire plane. Sure, you could build an airplane that looks at least similarly to a Draken on the outside, but which uses compound fibers on the inside, but what would be the point?

<hurr durr if you change it it becomes different so what's the point

The Boeing 737 is in production since 1967. The F-16 since 1975. Latter versions don't even resemble the originals internally, and neither does the production line.


0be0a6  No.645832

>>645806

Where the fuck did he say anything about fibers, you fucking sperg?


191c8c  No.645879

>>645831

>That's retarded. Aerodynamics have nothing to do with internal structure, and planforms can be scaled up and down with minimal change. That's how wind tunnel modeling works.

Aerodynamics dictate the internal structure. The aerodynamic forces applied on the aircraft hull must be transferred to the fuselage, where it must be spread out so the aircraft won't break apart.

Reshaping the wing for example may increase lift, which means that you have to reinforce the wing-attachment point so it won't shear off in flight, as well as the internal structure of the wing, which now has to support a greater load. Because the wing is now stronger and thus heavier, it will pull down more on the attachment point when the aircraft is landed and thus the attachment point needs even more reinforcement.

The internals of a plane also dictate it's externals. Add a larger fuel tank and you will require greater lift, which requires differently shaped wings, which require different wing internals and so on and so forth. Design is an iterative process. One thing influences the other, which influences the first and the fifth thing. It all comes biting itself in the ass at some point.

>Using a tried and tested planform means you already know were the stresses are coming from. Duh.

I refuse to believe this isn't bait.

>The Boeing 737 is in production since 1967. The F-16 since 1975. Latter versions don't even resemble the originals internally, and neither does the production line.

doubt.jpg

The Engines are still in the same place, wings are still the same length, hydraulics still use the same systems, maybe they got an electrics upgrade, but even then they most likely ripped out old parts and put in newer ones.

The reason why the 737 remained in production is because it fucking works. They didn't change the hull from Al2024 to carboon fiber. They didn't use any new materials, they simply replaced older parts with more efficient ones that have become cheaper.

The best example are the engines. They didn't suddenly use engines that had new materials in them. The same materials were used in the same ways, but with more careful calculations, better simulations and new design philosophies in mind to create engines that work better using the same materials.

They also didn't suddenly stop using rivets to hold the aluminium together. They didn't switch to glue or welding large portions of the hull. They still sue rivets, because those simply work and don't need much calculation. Those rivets are still placed using the same technologies. Riveting robots have existed since the early '90s.

It's not materials that make aircraft perform better or cheaper. It's 40% new regulation technologies, 40% new designs, and 20% new calculations.


84fca6  No.645907

File: 1f05ca24a51343e⋯.jpg (133.66 KB, 1024x685, 1024:685, Sukhoi_Su-47_in_formation,….jpg)

>>645879

>It's not materials that make aircraft perform better or cheaper.

What did he mean by this?


bb912d  No.645945

>>645907

The way Su-35's LERXs connect with its head is the most beautiful thing in existence. I never really liked the Berkyt because of this.


9a61d9  No.645962

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>644636

G-Wagen is one of the best 4x4 ever built.

My guilty pleasure is RennSport Audi division, especially the RS4 with naturally aspirated V8


9a61d9  No.645963

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

And the RS6 with biturbo lambo V10

(be advised to lower sound if using headphones)


191c8c  No.645969

>>645907

Aerospace engineers have used the same materials since the '40s. The real thing that improved airplane performance were new design ideas and calculation methods.

For example the first few jet powered airplanes all used single stage turbines. The turbine in the rear was connected to the compressor in the front with one spinning axis.

This meant that the compressor was rotating at the same speed as the turbine, which is OK for a single disk compressor, but generates continously worse performance the more disks you add to the compressor, because the first few disks are spinning too fast to do any actual work, and the last few are spinning too slow to be of much use.

A long time this caused problems for engineers and was limiting jet engine performance. Then came hollow axis, which revolutionized jet engines.

Now the turbine in the rear and the compressor in the front were separated into two parts. A high pressure and a low pressure section.

The high pressure section of the turbine (immediately rear of the combustion chamber) was connected to the high pressure section of the compressor (immediately forwards of the combustion chamber) using a hollow axis.

The low pressure section of the turbine was connected to the low pressure section of the compressor using a normal axis that went through the high pressure axis. Imagine one axis spinning inside a spinning tube.

This allowed engineers to finally solve the issue with rotation speed of compressor disks and drastically improve jet engine performance.

Note how no new materials were used? No new manufacturing methods were used either. All they did is come up with a new idea to solve a problem.

The same goes for calculation methods. They simply came up with new methods to predict the maximum loads that are still safe for a given material to take under certain circumstances. This is not so much engineering as it is a mix of materials science and engineering, but those new formulas are almost exclusively used in aerospace engineering anyways, simply because it is one of the few areas where a couple kilos are well worth more than 500 extra hours of calculations.


84fca6  No.645986

File: 3f8f4f216ab16f5⋯.jpg (433.41 KB, 1280x849, 1280:849, Chile_Air_Force_Northrop_F….jpg)

File: 164cf4c7755ae29⋯.jpg (466.73 KB, 1800x1260, 10:7, too_pure_for_this_world.jpg)

>>645969

>They simply came up with new methods to predict the maximum loads that are still safe for a given material to take under certain circumstances. This is not so much engineering as it is a mix of materials science and engineering, but those new formulas are almost exclusively used in aerospace engineering anyways, simply because it is one of the few areas where a couple kilos are well worth more than 500 extra hours of calculations.

But that shouldn't prevent one from applying said methods for the purpose of improving upon an existing airframe design.


22120b  No.645987

File: 889a891f1c5ea47⋯.jpg (110.88 KB, 1200x378, 200:63, Junkers-Ju-52-3mg3e-Grupo-….jpg)

>>643359

Good ol' Junker Ju-52 is my planefu, specially the modified bomber version used during the Spanish civil war.


45e083  No.645992

File: e6e60888298dcde⋯.jpg (68.64 KB, 498x482, 249:241, faggot 1479309141057.jpg)

>>645879

It is beyond doubt you are a dumb fucking troll who gets off from spamming dumb fucking bullshit, but this inane garbage needs to be addressed.

>The internals of a plane also dictate it's externals. Add a larger fuel tank and you will require greater lift, which requires differently shaped wings, which require different wing internals and so on and so forth. Design is an iterative process. One thing influences the other, which influences the first and the fifth thing. It all comes biting itself in the ass at some point.

Internals do not dictate shit, they exist to support prioritized design elements, like the airframe that was the entire point above.

>The Engines are still in the same place, wings are still the same length, hydraulics still use the same systems, maybe they got an electrics upgrade, but even then they most likely ripped out old parts and put in newer ones.

By which you mean you don't know shit, and you are damn talkative about it.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2013-06-03/more-details-737-max-materials-emerge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants#HiMAT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21_variants

>Aerospace engineers have used the same materials since the '40s. The real thing that improved airplane performance were new design ideas and calculation methods.

Ditto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine_blade#Materials

https://www.aerospacemanufacturinganddesign.com/article/amd0814-materials-aerospace-manufacturing/


4d9d0e  No.646078

File: 6eb7e7f7ee821ee⋯.jpg (188.73 KB, 1600x1067, 1600:1067, airco_dh_2__reproduction__….jpg)

File: 587213cb7735d4c⋯.jpg (779.07 KB, 1600x1067, 1600:1067, albatros_d_va__reproductio….jpg)

File: ac97658a153fd68⋯.jpg (100.4 KB, 1095x730, 3:2, fokker_dr1_by_daniel_wales….jpg)

File: b8433548fb49058⋯.jpg (5.01 MB, 3400x2258, 1700:1129, Fokker_D_VII_SE-XVO_OTT_20….jpg)

File: 83032fc72ff2d33⋯.jpg (212.96 KB, 1600x1067, 1600:1067, sopwith_f_1_camel__reprodu….jpg)

>no classics

Plebs.

>>645754

>>645986

I hate to agree with a nofun hater but the sperg has a point, in his stupid way. The design is fifties engineering. It's like making a Trabant out of cutting-edge modern materials: you can do it, but it won't work better, in fact it might even be worse.

If you mean taking the Draken's overall shape and design a modern airplane into it, like with the Super Hornet, that is doable.

But it won't be the same thing just made from something else.


4d9d0e  No.646079

File: 04cb08ff7c20b52⋯.jpg (4.41 MB, 3588x2192, 897:548, focke_wulf_fw_190a_5_taxi_….jpg)

File: 381aa529a3f9678⋯.jpg (1.44 MB, 2558x1742, 1279:871, focke_wulf_fw_190a_5_landi….jpg)

File: 3881fed147967fb⋯.jpg (1.87 MB, 2012x1616, 503:404, focw_190a_5_flyby_2_by_she….jpg)

File: ef2243434b5c855⋯.jpg (974.05 KB, 2225x1522, 2225:1522, focw_190_by_mikesplanes-d4….jpg)

File: f245c1770f3604d⋯.jpg (1.81 MB, 2937x2009, 2937:2009, focw_190_by_mikesplanes-d3….jpg)

>>646078

Love me some Butcher Birds.


ffea1b  No.646134

>>646078

Please don't be retarded, the F-5 aerodynamic philosophy is superior to anything in service today. We literally reduced airframe aerodynamics to fit in more fuel and sensors also later stealth.

An F-5 is infinitely more efficient than an F-15, F-16, or F-18.

The single engine version called F-20 is even more so, with a modern engine from the F-18 and carbon composites reducing its weight by 30% it basically becomes capable of supercruising at mach 2.


bb912d  No.646151

>>646134

>An F-5 is infinitely more efficient than an F-15, F-16, or F-18

The F-18 (YF-17) was made as an improvement of the F-5 airframe to specifically improve aerodynamic performance on the aspects F-5 had the advantage over planes.


53ea05  No.646165

>>646134

>An F-5 is infinitely more efficient than an F-15, F-16, or F-18.

and wasn't the Wright Flyer more efficient than any of them?


28d6db  No.646197

>>645157

>Definitely a bit of a thicc bitch though

Just like most Swedish women. Get them off the farm and off the labor it provides, combine it with the burger diet and suddenly you've got Tugboat Annie on your hands


1dd9af  No.646631

>>643527

Because it looks classy


191c8c  No.646641

>>646197

>tugboat annie

Don't insult tugboats like that. Without them the entire modern cargo-ship economy would fail.


908431  No.646782

File: 24d0d1b6714bd0f⋯.jpeg (12.6 KB, 179x281, 179:281, Hajdú.jpeg)

>>646641

Ships are gay af. Real motherfuckers carry their goods on the ground.


56be63  No.646784

>>646782

I actually agree, but land transportation takes a bit too long time but tugboat transportation gives away too much pollution.

If only we make ship like before where it's run by wind and hard labor.


908431  No.646786

File: e64b9b812a28f67⋯.jpg (56.25 KB, 740x459, 740:459, SMS Szent István.jpg)

>>646784

Military ships are ok though.


908431  No.646787

File: 99b392bb8cc4170⋯.jpg (46.2 KB, 861x460, 861:460, SMS Szent István.jpg)

>>646786

Shit, wrong pic. Here's the real Szent István.


56be63  No.646788

>>646786

It is very easy to militarize modern tugboats.

In fact, that's what I fear regarding China. Their navy is shit but they have a shitload of tugboats.


8af9be  No.646789

File: 38b1f82ffa0bce3⋯.jpg (181.26 KB, 650x521, 650:521, tug-boat.jpg)

>>646788

They look cute


34665d  No.647122

File: a2427c74c03b521⋯.jpg (309.37 KB, 924x924, 1:1, 1517129212363_20180127_002….jpg)

File: ccb9b755c6768ad⋯.jpg (19.45 KB, 240x180, 4:3, 1431569960002.jpg)

File: cb8d96c359c612b⋯.jpg (60.4 KB, 550x550, 1:1, flat,550x550,075,f.u1 (1).jpg)

I started this thread when slightly drunk looking at porn (su34 on youtube) and now here we are 159 replies later and a thread full of stuff/knowledge you can not find anywhere else on internet

That's why I love /k/

You're awesome


ea4f73  No.647124

>>647122

>Slovenia

No offense, but when do you want to get a proper airforce?


191c8c  No.647138

File: 551fe27421e91e5⋯.jpg (224.29 KB, 650x521, 650:521, ch.jpg)

>>646789

I want to hug a tug boat.


34665d  No.647143

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>647124

We are having low level terrain military practices this week (with as you know PC-9)

As for your question:

Sadly not until we get rid of communist government/tirany. we are occupied by Soros. People are waking up though. It is a mere question if we manage to take control of our country back in our hands before an all out war erupts in Europe.

people support Hungary here 70%.

The thirty percent hating on Hungary are Soros henchmen, who also control the MSM

Hopefully


34665d  No.647144

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

soon :^)


ea4f73  No.647189

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>647143

Just buy a dozen of F-16Vs or Gripens and be done with it.


897d2e  No.647212

File: 3a3f6f5410fba05⋯.jpg (1.52 MB, 4256x2832, 266:177, f16 1482187484425.jpg)

File: 888dcece691ce3e⋯.jpg (274.05 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, f16 1482195494958.jpg)

File: fe013ed53f99e88⋯.jpg (1.03 MB, 2560x1600, 8:5, f16 1493727532629.jpg)

File: 0e71d29fcbbc7cd⋯.jpg (968.96 KB, 1800x1200, 3:2, F16_SCANG_InFlight.jpg)

I unironically like the F-16.


191c8c  No.647216

File: c71ec9ffd62e36a⋯.jpg (1.98 MB, 2424x1850, 1212:925, Juvat_Viper_over_Denali.jpg)

File: bb9f867a53df3a7⋯.jpg (791.36 KB, 1759x1759, 1:1, Belgian_Air_Force_Days_201….jpg)

File: f631f47a6be8161⋯.jpg (883.42 KB, 3600x2400, 3:2, F-16_-_FAP_15107_(39419526….jpg)

File: 7433033fe99af33⋯.jpg (4.51 MB, 3240x2160, 3:2, A_USAF_F-16_pilot_breaking….jpg)

>>647212

It's unironically a gud plane.

Relatively cheap, reliable, good all-round multipurpose single engine single seat aircraft with a good service history and a lot of old planes spare parts lying around.


191c8c  No.647218

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Why are German early cold war VTOLs so fucking comfy?

And why was the V22 such a massive fucking failure compared to '60s German Space magic?


99b4da  No.647221

>>647218

>seemingly functional VTOL transport in 60's

Why was the program scrapped? Did all the traumatized stalingrad-related veterans end up dying off in such numbers that the whole thing was deemed thoroughly unnecessary?


191c8c  No.647222

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Just look at it. It looks like something cut from a 70s scifi comic!


191c8c  No.647224

>>647221

Same reason the German post-war stealth missile interceptor program got cancelled.

The US didn't want any non-american competition on the aerospace market. This pressure lead to European aircraft manufacturers slowly dying off because they couldn't sell their aircraft anylonger and were stuck with development costs. Eventually this forced them to join Airbus.


31a425  No.647226

>>647224

I was wondering why our dozen aircraft manufactures just packed up in the 60's and 70's.


c76739  No.647228

>>647224

>The US didn't want any non-american competition on the aerospace market

Keep blaming the US for everything krautist.

The reason why nobody wanted them is that NO ONE wanted to buy German after that little incident called WWII…

Not even the German government.

That plane like everything of that era is about as German as fish and chips, it's British engines designed by a french, using the french concept of VTOL (which was abandoned after the first prototypes in the early 60's when they realized either it would be nightmare cost/maintenance or they would have to seriously impair flying performance, the british continued to refine the same concepts and components into the Harrier, while the french cut their losses ahead and went for full fledged CATOBAR carriers instead).

And, like the first french prototypes, while it was working the bloody thing had 8 (8!) lift engines in addition to it's main engine for flying.

No-one sane would have bought them had they been US.


191c8c  No.647236

>>647228

>not even the German government

Which is a lie. They tried to adopt Dornie and Fokker aircraft, but couldn't because if they were the only buyer those planes would have been far too expensive.

>NO ONE wanted to buy German after that little incident called WWII

That is debatable. I would have agreed if you had said that it was because Germany would be the first one to fall under a soviet attack, and thus any further plane deliveries would have fallen through. A problem which could have been solved with license production.

>british engines

Because Rolls Royce already produced tilting thrust turbine engines. Why come up with something new and experimental when you can use components that already work to make it cheaper?

>using the french concept of VTOL

VTOL is not a national concept mate. That would be like saying that the steam engine is a british concept, or assembly lines an american concept. It doesn't matter. We used it. It works. And French aerospace companies didn't achieve the same things with the concept as German ones. Your entire argument is irrelevant.

>No-one sane would have bought them had they been US.

That so far has been the only argument that makes sense. But: all European nations were looking at ways to avoid large concrete targets runways for aircraft at the time. That's why RATOL and VTOL became popular in the first place. At the time the Do31 was, and to this day still is, a revolutionary concept that could have become a staple of most militaries. Faster, longer range and with more capacity than most helicopters of that age, it could seriously have advanced the airborne infantry concept.


897d2e  No.647426

File: 57f0dfd70a40e7d⋯.jpg (180.47 KB, 1024x695, 1024:695, tu22 6TMTD.jpg)

File: c4168671a20d240⋯.jpg (622.91 KB, 2288x946, 104:43, tu22 Engels_Air_base_museu….jpg)

File: de13a5253faa154⋯.jpg (1.17 MB, 1800x942, 300:157, tu22 LCl9wf7.jpg)

File: 07d450583b2002c⋯.jpg (77.93 KB, 1024x592, 64:37, Tu-22R (Blinder-C) 7.jpg)

File: 56530e4468dc416⋯.jpg (253.72 KB, 2400x1800, 4:3, tupolev-tu-22-wallpapers-2….jpg)

Everything from Tupolev is beautiful. Even their lemons.

>>647228

>Keep blaming the US for everything krautist.

<It's the invisible hand of the market fairy that favors the garbage the McMongrel lobbyists want! Pure coincidence!


b4aa35  No.647434

>>647426

It looks more futuristic and streamlined than its replacement. Wonder why it sucked so hard it had to be retconned out of history.


5515b0  No.647436

File: edc1f828e22163b⋯.gif (385.18 KB, 1200x787, 1200:787, edc1f828e22163b1d0ce707a44….gif)

>>647189

What's up with these youtube channels with a bunch of stolen footage and a TTS voice about military shit? There are so many of these.

>>647212

There are people who dislike it? I have almost never heard anyone be particularly negative about it.


b4aa35  No.647439

>>647212

>>647216

>>647436

Other than Lockheeb and durkey currently having the production rights, there's nothing really bad about it and it's even really good in certain aspects.


b4aa35  No.647440

>>647228

>Keep blaming the US for everything krautist.

He's right though. The European industries died so that murkan lobbies would monopolize high-ends military gear and only (((Dassault))) managed to survive the purge.


191c8c  No.647471

File: ceaace1c2c70358⋯.jpg (48.75 KB, 700x484, 175:121, 9bb30138c766610e5bdcef497e….jpg)

File: 0220561f08974d4⋯.jpeg (168.47 KB, 1200x810, 40:27, serveimage.jpeg)

File: 61561db9dae1a03⋯.jpeg (139.2 KB, 1200x800, 3:2, serveimage0.jpeg)

File: 8cbcaf4a3dcf1e2⋯.jpeg (280.31 KB, 2067x1299, 689:433, serveimage1.jpeg)

Do helos count?

>ywn fly your helo to work


4d0b78  No.647477

>>647436

Dunno. I only ever use yt once or twice a week, and even then just for watching videos about weapons/military conflicts…


897d2e  No.647714

File: 43d543a6a01b35f⋯.jpg (492.4 KB, 1920x1200, 8:5, f4 1458326828769-2.jpg)

File: cb7654a96527dfd⋯.jpg (756.59 KB, 2850x1920, 95:64, f4 1493098431034.jpg)

File: 53e872ae3526d99⋯.jpg (373.07 KB, 1200x1593, 400:531, f4 1493528693838.jpg)

File: ceb90ae6fb29ea3⋯.jpg (516.53 KB, 3366x2132, 1683:1066, f4 1493182063063.jpg)

File: e597935d0e96c28⋯.jpg (50.26 KB, 736x490, 368:245, RF-4C c6YVZAo.jpg)

T H I C C

H

I

C

C

>>647434

>muh futuristic and streamlined look


897d2e  No.647719

File: 915be03daad36d0⋯.jpg (702.8 KB, 1500x1019, 1500:1019, mig-25 49576_1412969212.jpg)

File: a04be9bf4e2c0e6⋯.jpg (96.09 KB, 1200x825, 16:11, mig-25 d71d59fd60b662874b9….jpg)

File: 6a5a4390c304c0f⋯.jpg (1.18 MB, 2600x1232, 325:154, mig-25 1269532602726.jpg)

File: 8ca0071aca6e070⋯.jpg (544.8 KB, 2048x1365, 2048:1365, mig-25 1292330_72016276801….jpg)

Brutality has a beauty on its own.

>>647436

>>647439

It carries the stigma of being popular, and a ZOG-mobile to boot.


897d2e  No.647724

>>647719

*of its own


897d2e  No.647726

File: 5cb33bdcd4eac4b⋯.jpg (119.55 KB, 1680x1050, 8:5, mig-25 145974395852.jpg)

File: bfa8140190e6e7d⋯.jpg (159.32 KB, 1200x800, 3:2, mig-25 12412_original.jpg)

File: e1fe1a1c51a2b85⋯.jpeg (64.31 KB, 800x534, 400:267, mig-31 s1200.jpeg)

File: 58113ed8233d6b4⋯.jpg (131.75 KB, 1200x630, 40:21, MIG-31D3 58 AIRE 2011.jpg)

File: ddc39f3f7600b8e⋯.jpg (284.19 KB, 1200x812, 300:203, MiG-25-Foxbat-1.jpg)

>>647719

First pic is a 31, but it's not like the design philosophy is that much different.


ffea1b  No.647764

>>647726

Same design philosophy as an F-15. Intakes are part-ramjet at high altitudes, there's just not enough air for them not to be partially used to collect and compress the airflow.


b4aa35  No.647855

>>647726

> but it's not like the design philosophy is that much different

Both are a direct developments of the Ye-155P protoype, the main difference was that the -31 spared some more shekels in its development and maintenance-budget in order to make it useful in actual air-combat whereas the -25 was obsolete the moment the West developed the first countermeasure (namely the very first 4th gen fighters) and was left with its only use being dickwaving competitions between sandniggers (and curryniggers).


897d2e  No.647916

File: 52ea63af5a306c6⋯.jpg (247.64 KB, 1231x1774, 1231:1774, varg disapproves.jpg)

>>647764

Stop making up bullshit.

Variable geometry intakes are for Mach 2+ flight, not ramjets or altitude. Beyond that, the plane has nothing in common with the F-15.

>>647855

Ditto.

The plane was made to intercept bombers and reconnaissance, not dogfighting shit.


ffea1b  No.647932

>>647916

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intake_ramp

>An intake ramp is a rectangular, plate-like device within the air intake of a jet engine, designed to generate a number of shock waves to aid the inlet compression process at supersonic speeds.

>inlet compression

>inlet compression

>inlet compression

It's a pseudo ramjet idea, the philosophy of this type of design is clear, air needs to be pre compressed at high altitude because the air pressure there is lower. Take 10 seconds to google a post before making such a revolting reply clearly with intent to start an internet argument.

>>647855

You need to have more speed than a bomber to effectively intercept it, although "intercept" is a misnomer since WWII. A bomber approaching at mach 2.2+ will deliver the payload before you can intercept it, the point of modern interceptors is to catch up with the bomber in a stern chase before it can overfly your country and disappear under friendly air force umbrella. The point is to shoot it down so the enemy can't use it again.


39eaa2  No.647951

>>647932

Not true at all, back in the 80s we routinely did head-on interceptions of SR-71s and MiG-25s. It's mostly just a matter of keeping a few interceptors ready to launch at all times, which we stopped doing in the 90s because it's expensive and we need that money to buy more F-35s.


b4aa35  No.647983

>>647916

>The plane was made to intercept bombers

Therefore it was completely useless the moment XB-71 and B-1A were cancelled.

>and reconnaissance

That's where the dickwaving competitions between sandniggers comes into play. No NATO or first world air-defenses, not even us or durkroaches would have real trouble shooting down an overflying Foxbat with the average Sparrow.


e2ef09  No.648115

File: e7af75328dea965⋯.jpg (65 KB, 517x650, 517:650, canada.jpg)

>>647932

>every shock cone or ramp is a ramjet

Retard. The shock waves are for protecting the compressor from supersonic airflow, not to make a ramjet like on the SR-71. Take 10 seconds to google a post before making such a revolting reply clearly with intent to start an internet argument.


d79d9f  No.649112

File: c519ec8364db112⋯.jpg (5.22 MB, 6000x4000, 3:2, aerial cock guzzling devic….jpg)

With NGF comprising the fighter element of the system-of-systems, the Next-Generation Weapon System (NGWS) comprises the NGF and unmanned ‘wingmen’, while the wider Future Combat Air System comprises the NGWS and all other air assets in the future operational battlespace.


fcf18a  No.650089

File: 8b6144c2fb54643⋯.jpg (140.13 KB, 1456x823, 1456:823, 2nd_XP-55.jpg)

File: 475ab8c6744900f⋯.jpg (769.08 KB, 2500x1975, 100:79, Vultee XP-54-0.jpg)

File: eadfbc0164ec6ae⋯.jpg (88.14 KB, 700x488, 175:122, XP-56_-_Ray_Wagner_Collect….jpg)

Reminder that pusher props are the sexiest configuration and that the rise of jets is the greatest crime to aircraft aesthetics.


205289  No.650090

>>650089

Ok now hear me out. I got a crazy idea.

Alright, you with me?

What if you had a plane with a pusher prop, forward swept wings, and canards?


39eaa2  No.650094

File: faf279c9fae07b4⋯.jpg (200.73 KB, 1024x670, 512:335, Sud-Ouest_(SNCASO)_SO.8000….jpg)

File: 62f7dfa2d78dc1d⋯.jpg (154.96 KB, 1920x1280, 3:2, Fokker_D.XXIII[1].jpg)

>>650089

It's a real shame that all the really cool designs are obscure prototypes that nobody ever heard of.


d79d9f  No.650099

File: 25792f08e773f34⋯.jpg (6.02 MB, 2685x3968, 2685:3968, It_is_far_better_to_face_t….jpg)

File: aa4e5079eb41c06⋯.jpg (5.44 MB, 5650x4384, 2825:2192, NH43901-enhanced.jpg)

File: ea82a64527aec82⋯.jpg (78.54 KB, 740x566, 370:283, USS_Akron_in_flight,_nov_1….jpg)

File: 963b4bd0ead3cab⋯.jpg (57.52 KB, 534x800, 267:400, Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1971….jpg)

File: 380669b6d54b5b7⋯.jpg (325.67 KB, 1184x626, 592:313, L_31_in_Luft.jpg)

>>650089

>pusher props are the sexiest configuration

You are objectively wrong.

>inb4 Hindenburg disaster

Even in death they are majestic as fuck.


84fca6  No.650107

File: eacac49305721b1⋯.webm (16 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, Bomber escort.webm)

>>650089

Meine Flüchtlingsfachkraft.


5ef8a7  No.650110

>>650089

Dunno, seems kinda countereffective to me since the only advantage of props is the extra-lift they generate.


dfa1e0  No.650145

>>650099

why did they change graf zeppelin 2 over to tractor props when the hindenburg had pusher props?


fcf18a  No.650159

>>650110

Performance is relative, beauty is forever.


7e6e25  No.650204

File: 326c952f5c36ba0⋯.jpg (366.36 KB, 3000x2043, 1000:681, 305669main_ED09-0008-25_fu….jpg)

File: fe107e669cf62c3⋯.jpg (9.25 KB, 480x360, 4:3, hqdefault.jpg)

File: 84779cbb1a2efb3⋯.jpg (58.26 KB, 798x464, 399:232, DUCZPzzUMAAWgiG.jpg)

File: 54d50c8eb7dc2c3⋯.jpg (177.95 KB, 1200x801, 400:267, 1200px-F15smtd01.jpg)

Them thrust vectoring nozzles are beyond sexy. Why couldn't an F-15 with canards have been adopted instead of the .mil paying for mexican tranny surgeries? Truly the worst timeline. F-15 ACTIVE/STOL/MTD is best F-15.


d79d9f  No.650501

File: fedcd291877ec9c⋯.jpg (4.97 MB, 4288x2848, 134:89, F-22_(13085402185).jpg)

File: c64c88be69f574d⋯.jpg (421.87 KB, 1772x1181, 1772:1181, F-22_Raptor_(5135056491).jpg)

File: 56525d835c0e887⋯.jpg (2.7 MB, 3000x2000, 3:2, F22_Raptor_-_Chino_Airshow….jpg)

File: cedec257fa17d58⋯.jpg (1.33 MB, 1600x1067, 1600:1067, Ken_H._Touchdown_'DEVIL_01….jpg)

>>650204

But the US started using vectoring nozzles though :^)

F22 looks like a fucking space ship.


8890f6  No.650514

>>650501

There's no stealth in space.


8ef11c  No.650515

>>650514

Why don't we just respect stealth-looking designs and treat them as if they were hidden as an agreement instead? The cooler it's looking the better are its "stealth" capabilities.


39eaa2  No.650517

>>650514

There isn't any stealth in the atmosphere either :^)


24f649  No.650524

File: e52e143cbf6a982⋯.jpg (619.13 KB, 1920x1275, 128:85, F-15B_C-1984-6457.jpg)

>>650501

It's just not the same Germany, it's just not the same…


25e1a1  No.650534

>>644610

Don't pretend that slavshit planefus aren't sexy.


8890f6  No.650566

File: 2f51ff30bbb9f0f⋯.png (Spoiler Image, 211.83 KB, 2186x704, 1093:352, NORTHROP_B-2222B.png)

>>650515

>>650517

Rate my idea.


8ef11c  No.650572

>>650566

7/10 not ridiculous enough

Put some big ass artillery cannon on it to confuse your enemy and strike fear in their hearts

Or make it an actual boomerang, with a giant sling launcher and AI-guided targeting so that it can hit your enemy while it flies spinning over the panicking troops


25e92c  No.650632

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>647212

>>647216

F-16 is the girl next door and my 1st <3


d79d9f  No.650637

File: 3cc2fa975234a81⋯.jpg (729.85 KB, 1995x1333, 1995:1333, Farnborough_Airshow_(75703….jpg)

>>650566

We need to make it THICCER!

>>650632

If F16 is the girl next door, F18 is hot singles in your area!


ffea1b  No.650649

>>648115

>are ramjet

>>647764

>Intakes are part-ramjet at high altitudes, there's just not enough air for them not to be partially used to collect and compress the airflow.

>>647932

>It's a pseudo ramjet idea

I bothered to put a word in front of the word "ramjet", which makes it fucking plain that it's not a ramjet.

Maybe you should learn to read Israel Flag muttspammer.


25e92c  No.650653

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>650637

If I want a twin-engine jet, I'll go for the Mig-29.


8890f6  No.650697

File: eca68da063f071b⋯.jpg (95.38 KB, 800x433, 800:433, 800px-Patlabor2-M61-1.jpg)

File: 9855a7c567ef70b⋯.jpg (156.89 KB, 960x540, 16:9, f15customeagleplus-2.jpg)

File: ade8af180af2727⋯.png (1.3 MB, 2000x2252, 500:563, F-15S AC2.png)

>>650524

>>650204

>>650501

You almost answered his original question. Thrust vectoring used in a dogfight is a very risky and wasteful energy for positioning trade-off and since the Su-27 and MiG-29 families championed this greatly opportunistic aspect of super-high alpha maneuvering, even without thrust-vectoring it was easily (((dismissed by the West as useless))) for propagandistic reasons since the Su-27 was already overwhelming all other contemporary fighters in almost every performance aspect even though they had extensively experimented with TV for combat maneuvers with at least satisfactory results:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell-MBB_X-31

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_VISTA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Alpha_Research_Vehicle

The reason F-22 has thrust vectoring is the same reason F-15SMT never came to be. F-22, thanks to TV, currently has the highest instantaneous turn rate among all production western fighters at more than 27^/sec and equals or maybe even surpasses Su-27 in this aspect. Problem is that due to stealth aerodynamic compromises it bleeds energy probably even more intensely than the, heavily criticized for this, Russian equivalents when they pull similar maneuvers, like the P's Cobra, resulting in some more or less embarrassing reports in dogfights against 4th gen fighters (thankfully for the Raptor though it can compensate with top energy replenishment due to unprecedented thrust/weight ratio).

Now without the thrust vectoring and even with the excellent t/w ratio the F-22's maneuvering characteristics would not be that impressive. The already somewhat faster and slightly higher flying F-15 would be a serious threat to F-22's image, already stained by questions about cost effectiveness, if it incorporated the SMT configuration, consequently blowing F-22 out of the water in all areas of conventional performance.

Thrust vectoring might be far from a close quarter combat panacea but IMO its performance enhancing aspects are far from being limited to that. Most notably:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_STOL/MTD#Design_and_development

>Controlled flight at angles of attack up to about 85 degrees

> vectored takeoffs with rotation at speeds as low as 42 mph (68 km/h)

>A 25-percent reduction in takeoff roll

>Landing on just 1,650 ft (500 m) of runwaycompared to 7,500 ft (2,300 m) for the standard F-15 (!!!)

Now to even further beyond, imagine what would have happened if they were to mix S/MTD's technology with Silent Eagle's stealthy perks and F-22's engines.


d79d9f  No.650698

File: 0f9caffd7c718f6⋯.jpg (2.98 MB, 2860x1880, 143:94, MiG-29_and_F-16.jpg)

File: 0627808d108362e⋯.jpg (771.59 KB, 3000x1967, 3000:1967, Mig_29_firing_AA-10.JPG)

File: cc384d6d6deb385⋯.jpg (2.07 MB, 2646x1984, 1323:992, MiG-29_der_Luftwaffe.jpg)

File: 401484dbc6dfbdd⋯.jpg (246.31 KB, 1024x685, 1024:685, German_Air_Force_(29 01)_M….jpg)

File: d35ef9eb428eec1⋯.jpeg (1.59 MB, 2848x1820, 712:455, USAF_F-16s_Luftwaffe_MiG-….jpeg)

>>650653

I think we already talked about that one.

It looks so fucking sexy.


84fca6  No.650717

File: 0d7e549f3621383⋯.mp4 (8.94 MB, 640x480, 4:3, F-15S Eagle (S_MTD) Stall ….mp4)

>>650697

>Now to even further beyond, imagine what would have happened if they were to mix S/MTD's technology with Silent Eagle's stealthy perks and F-22's engines.

I have a faint hope the F-15X might incorporate at least some of the above in its design, especially once the F-35 reaches wider "adoption" and F-22s start getting retired due to lack of tooling.

That said how does the F-22's instantaneous turn rate compare with that of the Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale?

Delta canard planes are renowned for their instantaneous turns at the cost of sustained turn rate and Eurocanards were able to score WVR kills against Raptors during Red Flag exercises if I recall.


1ed2cd  No.650731

>>650717

>Delta canard planes are renowned for their instantaneous turns at the cost of sustained turn rate

Yes, but surprisingly enough the Rafale and especially the Eurofighter have a considerably better sustained turn performance than any other fighter in service except the F-16 in light configuration, which is slightly inferior to the Rafale, while their high alpha capacity, which is usually positively correlated to instantaneous turn rate and, is mediocre in Rafale and abysmal in the Typhoon at less than 40 degrees maximum allowed.

According to Eurofighter Consortium's claims from the early 00's the Typhoon slightly surpasses the Rafale and together they also slightly surpass Su-27 and consequently MiG-29; I call bullshit on both claims given that the later two have sustained AoA values of over 80 degrees and given that Rafale is the only one from the earlier two that can pull some cobraesque supermaneuvers.

Have no real clue about the Gripen but knowing that, like Rafale and unlike Typhoon with its long-arm canards, it has close coupled canards, more conventional air intake positioning and comparatively anemic thrust/weight, I'd guess it is closer to Rafale's values but not with not as good sustained turn performance.


1ed2cd  No.650732

>>650717

>>650731

>>Delta canard planes are renowned for their instantaneous turns at the cost of sustained turn rate

And btw though this is true in most cases it might as well be an observational artifact resulting from the fact that the by far most used delta wings in combat were the MiG-21 (essentially a tailed delta) and most characteristically the Mirage III, which' derivatives pretty much monopolized the delta-canard configuration and which' basic aerodynamic design sucked in terms of sustained turn rate all the way up to the Mirage2000.

The Viggen not only had top-notch sustained turning among 3rd gen fighters but even more impressively managed to do so while being a complete fatass though to be fair it was just an engine with wings, a cockpit and a nose cone.


237c1e  No.650784

File: 92914d6b346ffbd⋯.mp4 (284.79 KB, 636x286, 318:143, dump_n_light.mp4)

No love for the awkward F-111 Aadvark?


1ed2cd  No.650798

>>650784

60's F-35


d79d9f  No.650837

File: c2207c73ca7e270⋯.jpg (406.67 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, 4_RAAF_F-111C_perform_a_lo….jpg)

File: f9c01d5b85d5a44⋯.jpg (635.74 KB, 1200x797, 1200:797, A8-147_General_Dynamics_F-….jpg)

File: 3fbbf357e0ff5eb⋯.jpg (1.7 MB, 2848x2144, 89:67, FuelDumpA340-600.JPG)

>>650784

It's just a fuel dump. I know you aussies got a strange attraction to burnign kerosene for no purpose, but that's no excuse.


a292e3  No.650844

>>650837

Better to burn it then let the abbos at it. They're already a danger when they huff petrol, imagine the damage they could cause on kerosene.


84fca6  No.650874

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>650731

>while their high alpha capacity, which is usually positively correlated to instantaneous turn rate and, is mediocre in Rafale and abysmal in the Typhoon at less than 40 degrees maximum allowed.

Probably has something to do with the fact that pure canard configs can't ever exceed a certain AoA envelope lest their canard stalls safely mid-turn or the main wing stalls first propelling the airplane into an unrecoverable loop-de-loop.

Three surface configs do not suffer from this as the big tailplane elevators usually retain their drag-based control authority when pitching the nose up in lieu of canard fuckery.

Another reason to install TVC nozzles I suppose.

t. played some simpleplanes

>>650844

>Abos on Kerosene vs Niggers on KFC&Watermelon

Who would win?


1ed2cd  No.650890

>>650874

>Who would win?

Humanity.


ffea1b  No.650892

File: 346851dfb00da80⋯.jpg (239.95 KB, 1600x1200, 4:3, Eurofighter Typhoon Wallpa….jpg)

File: c2a21f049b24bf6⋯.jpg (417.4 KB, 1600x1062, 800:531, Sukhoi-Su-30MKI-Flanker-IA….jpg)

>>650874

This is only if the canard is a crucial control surface, and not merely a redundant addition. Some Russian jets have canards too and they do fine because it's a redundant control surface in case their giant tails get shot off.

Typhoon and Rafale basically have no trail, they relies on the canards as actual control surfaces.


1ed2cd  No.650893

>>650874

Good observation btw. I'd assume that fully movable canards is another part for the trick even though all modern Europoor delta canards have it nowadays.


1ed2cd  No.650894

>>650892

Also true.


ffea1b  No.650895

>>650892

Ooops it's 9 control surfaces, the body of the russian jet has several air brakes, a large dorsal one and two smaller ventral ones.


206bb6  No.650903

File: 7d00653b8c7c18f⋯.png (974.98 KB, 852x551, 852:551, Screenshot_21.png)


1ed2cd  No.650908

File: b8e37b25a8e85f1⋯.png (208.18 KB, 499x291, 499:291, Facebook-790da7.png)

>>650892

>this selection of font and color though


84fca6  No.650909

>>650893

All-moving Canards are funny in that they really love to pitch up and will never cause the plane to "spin" when doing so, but pitching down rapidly generates unstable drag vortexes and other shit that makes bad things happen.

There's a reason the EF-2000, Rafale and Gripen can't fly without their respective FBW systems continously autocorrecting the canard pitch 6 million times/sec so the planes stay on course.

Fixed canards like on the Gripen are much more predictable in that regard, they just need to be properly designed and balanced against the rest of the airframe.

>>650892

>redundancy

Canards also help with fuel efficiency and short takeoffs/landings.


1ed2cd  No.650912

>>650909

>Canards also help with fuel efficiency

That's very conditional though.


84fca6  No.650913

Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>650912

The additional lift+relative lack of drag generated by them does help somewhat, though it depends on a number of factors.


d636c9  No.650918

>>650903

I work at a museum that repairs and build old fabric prop planes.

Compared to aluminum, fabric planes are very light and versatile, stall speeds are low and take off and landing can occur over as little as 200 feet.


1ed2cd  No.650919

>>650913

As an extra aerodynamic surface they actually increase total drag, they just eliminate some turbulence that causes great part of parasitic drag as speed increases, especially with long arm canards hence the Typhoon's low speed performance issues that required redesigning the main wings' LERXs.


ffea1b  No.650953

>>650913

>>650909

Again it's a "relative lack of drag" if you remove your freaking tail, which has a whole host of problems like canard stalling at high AOA and acting as an airplane brake in maneuvers.


84fca6  No.650969

File: 11fb63d93e69027⋯.png (178.53 KB, 463x492, 463:492, kaguya confus.png)

>>650953

>canard stalling at high AOA

I doubt the canards on Eurokikers and the like do that, they're far too big.

Also stalling before the main wing is an inherent safety feature of stable canard designs.

<acting as an airplane brake in maneuvers


d79d9f  No.651217

File: 6ddd6643d4b513a⋯.jpeg (34.6 KB, 800x600, 4:3, serveimage.jpeg)

File: af7dda91b47bc00⋯.jpeg (64.08 KB, 900x600, 3:2, serveimage0.jpeg)

File: 056ebce9523c050⋯.jpeg (121.38 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, serveimage1.jpeg)

I personally think that hardpoints are the sexiest part of an aircraft.

They hold extremely heavy external weights at very high g-loads and will still release with relative certainty once the pilot pushes a button. Sugoi.


90aa04  No.651245

File: b4f9af5f219edf2⋯.jpg (1 MB, 4000x2885, 800:577, serveimage2.jpg)

File: 0019479355bf2c9⋯.jpg (37.85 KB, 700x460, 35:23, file6zv6dc37xy9rr3sg2t5153….jpg)

>>650892

Bitch don't insult the Rafale aerodynamics by associating it with the EF.


84fca6  No.651250

File: a299ab0eb1e08cf⋯.png (551.2 KB, 620x627, 620:627, ClipboardImage.png)

>>651245

That big cockpit CRT alone makes her the best Eurocanard.


ffea1b  No.651301

>>651245

rafale tries to do lifting body with a single engine, and its a much more modern design. typhoon is a design from the 70s and 80s that russians with their shit computers at the time played with (mig1.44). but its still lacking a tail and has all the downsides of a delta.


1ed2cd  No.651362

>>651245

>>651301

This. The Rafale is a much more sophisticated airframe. The typhoon is aerodynamically just a delta F-16 with canards instead of LERXs.


dfa1e0  No.651385

>>651250

damn that's cool as shit. Is it still a CRT in new models?

>>650784

IT hurts me deeply that all supposed replacements for the f111 are worse at the stated aim.

F15 SE and f18 (super and legacy) have less capacity and range than f111 variants.


1ed2cd  No.651387

>>651385

Blame the end of Cold War rendering medium range bombers a gross redundancy.


d79d9f  No.651394

>>651303

Go post it on 4chan then.


184248  No.651494

File: d5211c4c4b043d9⋯.jpg (64.92 KB, 490x730, 49:73, heli kamov-26.jpg)

>>647471

>coaxial rotor

It's like a physical manifestation of obsessive-compulsive disorder.


83bbe3  No.651497

File: 12ae2a4680bbabc⋯.jpg (162.74 KB, 2048x1365, 2048:1365, 51311704_2158359904227977_….jpg)

>>651250

>>651385

Not CRT but a display that is collimated to infinity. It allows pilot to shift their view from HUD or outside to that tactical display and back without refocusing their eyes.

The easiest way you can demo this yourself is to go to a window and hold up your hand in front of you, look at something at the distance and then at your hand and then back to distance. Keep repeating that quickly and notice not only how strained your eyes get but it actually takes a noticeable time to focus. Then try picking two objects at the distance and swap your view between them, much more comfier that way. Imagine for example being in a fighterjet in a situation where you need to keep your focus and eyes out but also need to keep tabs on overall tactical situation that is shown on your display, with a traditional display setup or "modern" widescreen touchdisplay pilots performance quickly deteriorates just from the eye strain alone to them staring either or for long periods at a time. With collimated to infinity display the pilot could easily keep a 3s out 1s peek at display loop going on for as long as needed


84fca6  No.651500

>>651497

Interesting. Why isn't this more widespread among fighter aircraft cockpit designs?


d95184  No.651622

File: a89e236b74427a5⋯.png (1.16 MB, 1440x750, 48:25, ClipboardImage.png)

>>645831

>1.36 thrust to weight

IT COULD HAVE BEEN A SPACE PLANE WITH A ROCKET POD THE SIZE OF A FUEL TANK

I WILL NEVER FORGIVE THE JEWS FOR PICKING THE 22 OVER THE 23

At least the AF museum is restoring the gray ghost.


a5025a  No.651974

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

What's good about Mirages? Sell me on it, frenchies!


8890f6  No.651985

>>651974

>solid and maneuverable 4th gen fighters with solid 4.5gen upgrades

>faster than most other combat jets in service

>lower maintenance cost than the even F-16

>so easy in maintenance even sandniggers can do it

>almost as proven against roaches as Raid

Other than those, there's not point in purchasing new ones now since Dassault has put all their focus in keeping Rafale afloat.


fd93e8  No.654810

File: 260a0db0cc608ad⋯.jpg (75.63 KB, 900x610, 90:61, 20190304.jpg)

My plane-fu is a /k/-plane with no guns.


ddfc9a  No.654817

Do you know anyone who uses the seaplane to fly around the world and live in it as a permanent home?


d79d9f  No.654880

File: 6aa900e8bd7a69d⋯.jpeg (Spoiler Image, 67.87 KB, 623x573, 623:573, serveimage.jpeg)

File: 1c053371a411ffd⋯.jpeg (Spoiler Image, 141.29 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, serveimage0.jpeg)

>>654810

It's like the most smug airplane design in history. Flaunting a fat, expensive ass in front of and directly above soviet airspace, and yet they can't touch. All the soviets could do was helplessly admit their impotence and accept that there were planes penetrating their airspace and taking pictures of their bases daily.

>>654817

First pic related. Born and raised in India, has adopted one child, then married and fathered another. then bought a sea plane (second pic) and started an international airfreight company. He is raid to be an adequate singer too.


f498ee  No.654882

File: 928b661de33ebfe⋯.jpg (197.22 KB, 600x400, 3:2, Su-37 Terminator.jpg)

File: 2ded76e615e4988⋯.jpg (378.74 KB, 3500x1052, 875:263, SU-47 (3).jpg)

>>643401

>>650204

>>650524

>>650698

These guys know the fancy stuff.


6ecfd2  No.654899

>>650969

><acting as an airplane brake in maneuvers

Airbrakes are completely obsolete, planes with FBW can use their aerodynamic surfaces instead for rapid deceleration amd still perform the intended maneuver adequately. .


cacc2c  No.654930

>>654880

Careful now, (((France))) is going to show up and tell you about how the soviets actually shot down 30 of them with their dead skies S-600000 missiles and they were retired because of that.


1bded0  No.654935

>>644198

IL-10. The reason the Luftwaffe had several aces with over 300 air-to-air kills and dozens of guys in the "100 Club".


1bded0  No.654936

If I was buying jets to today I guess I'd go with 33% Rafael and 66% Su-25 by number of planes.


c2c337  No.657685

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>650909

Gripen is the swedish girl next door that's easy….


7ff641  No.657711

>>650909

>Gripen

*Viggen


9e92cc  No.658153

>>644404

>tfw ywn dogfight a F-35 in a biplane and force a maneuver kill when it pancakes trying to outturn you below its stall speed


642a46  No.658165

>>658153

Don't forget than a wood-and-canvas biplane should be a lot more stealthy, because it has barely any parts that can reflect radar waves.


eb4cf1  No.658198

>>643660

I think you could do the job with a few photodiodes and a spinning mirror. If you know the angle of the mirror when a diode is illuminated then you could work out roughly where the laser is coming from.


cf3136  No.658225

>>658165

I'm awaiting the day some Guido throws grenades from a plane at people again.


3bc95b  No.658418

>>650903

topkek


3bc95b  No.658420

>>654882

>1st pic

gives me feelings I normally experience when touching a sexy woman


38df7d  No.658423

File: 6edef8b9d62e13e⋯.jpg (110.78 KB, 1304x591, 1304:591, 507-4.jpg)

File: f6dcd5af7b117b9⋯.jpg (89.44 KB, 768x521, 768:521, se-5-large-56a61c495f9b58b….jpg)

>>650107

Sky crawlers, because someone is gonna ask.

Where are all the old girls at? SE.5a is a cute.


b3b8e3  No.658991

>>651974

>What's good about Mirages?

It's the AK of light fighters.

It's cheap, durable, versatile, easy to use, easy to maintain, it has multiple options for modernization, kits and ammo packages that makes it a real multi-role.

In capable hands it's a very potent platform and the low cost/low maintenance means you can rack up flight hours even on a budget to get the capables hands.

If you don't have a special Washington/Moscow cocksucking discount it's the best ratio quality/price/capabilities you will find.


cad8db  No.659217

File: 2d9e96adb6b4579⋯.jpg (510.65 KB, 4198x2708, 2099:1354, PRAISE MIG25S.jpg)


825188  No.659454

>>643712

Thundertweet!


b3b8e3  No.659459

>>654930

Careful now or the ameritard is gonna make you believe those plane ever flew over the soviet union.


f95321  No.659855

>>659459

SR71 were flying over Kola and Vladivostok all the fucking time, Frog.


1bded0  No.666757

>>644615

should have covers on the spares, just saying, for truely finished look.

plus, chicks can perch themselves on the covered spares to pose without tire-black rubbing off on their clothes.


66b03b  No.667067

File: 9cc6466a3773218⋯.jpg (78.22 KB, 1500x990, 50:33, su 35.jpg)

File: beb1980dd1cb97c⋯.jpg (306.1 KB, 1920x1200, 8:5, mig 29.jpg)

File: a30975aee3890ae⋯.jpg (367.72 KB, 1023x681, 341:227, Russian_Air_Force_MiG-25.jpg)


272b5a  No.667073

File: b8c08dc96edc3f5⋯.gif (1.05 MB, 500x388, 125:97, lewd.gif)

>>667067

>1st pic

Why are its engines naked?


66b03b  No.667076

File: 61e8338937967be⋯.png (92.36 KB, 349x291, 349:291, idk.png)

>>667073

May be tanned or old




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bleached / choroy / christ / eros / g / metatech / vfur / xivlg ]