Trump Delivers on F-35 Promise

I was instead hoping for those F-18s.

How much worse is this kosher shilling going to get before the mods launch a crack down?

The F-35 is a waste of money. Even saving 700 million USD is a drop in the bucket compared what the program will cost us over its lifetime.
It's overkill for fighting ISIS. The only thing this would be good for is fighting middle powers like Iran. Any war against China will simply see this plane countered by swarms of cheap anti-air missiles.

Israel is also getting these planes for free, perhaps Trump should do something about that?

'Worse', Iran already has S-300s. Maybe even the 400 series, or will soon.

Why worse? He won't be attacking Iran for Israel will he?

I don't see why he would. He basically told Iran and Israel both to quit fucking around.

Oh no, it is as if we haven't invented cruise missiles yet.

I meant that in the sense that the F-35 would be facing more than the simplest radar systems.

Is Europe even working on anything right now that's even remotely close to being fielded?

Russia will be deploying the S-500, which acn knock anything out of the sky including ballistic missiles

Fucking lol. Russia only has 12 T-50's on order right now, and will not likely get anywhere near their goal of having 180 for their air force. China currently can't produce engines powerful enough to power the J-20, and Russia is refusing to sell them suitable engines. Neither of those platforms are going to be a strategic threat to the almost 2400 F-35s we're buying. Also, the F-35 is dumpstering the current USAF inventory of gen 4 aircraft in war games.

You haven't.

All current Russian AA systems from every levels can shoot down your slow as fuck tomahawks…
US cruise missiles are only good to fuck up sand people.

Also all Russian/Chinese/whatever systems are fully mobile and fairly autonomous (unlike Patriots, NASAMS, etc…), they can simply GTFO long before the slooooooooowwwwww cruise missiles reach them…

the problem is, the F/A-18 is a terrible plane. The F/A-18A-D has no legs because the aircraft was designed for the lightweight fighter Air Force mission, which after being navalized looses the "lightweight" part because of all the landing gear, tailhook, folding wingtips, etc. All of this extra weight meant the engines had to push out more power to perform the same maneuvers as the Air Force YF-17 would perform. Higher Power = More Fuel so it ALWAYS had to fly with an external fuel tank, SEVERELY limiting the maneuverability. They tried to put more fuel in the E/F SuperBug but Boeing didn't understand proper aerodynamic scaling and completely ruined any chance they had to improve it. The extra weight added for more fuel just limited the range to the same as the legacy hornets. The E/F was only supposed to be a stopgap for a better aircraft after cancellation of the A-12 Avenger II and cancellation of support for the F-14.

The USAF always fakes performance tests of equipment it wants, this is nothing new. The one time an honest appraisal slipped out, the testing was stopped, the parameters were changed so the enemy couldnt possibly win the simulation, and the new results were taken as the right ones

Eurofighter.

The F-35 carrier variant is going to be scrapped sooner or later.
Simply because it's not possible to use it without crippling the pilots.

In general the F35 is a disaster.
Nothing works like it should and a lot of the parts have to be replaced after very short periods, especially everything related to the VTOL capability.

That was already solved with conformal fuel tanks for the super hornet. Israel has been using them on their F16s to give them the range to strike their imagined enemies without refueling

The Eurofighter is already fielded and has been for years. It's not a 5th generation fighter.

Neither is the F-35.
It's a dud.

And so far the Eurofighter has proven itself superior to any of the so called fifth generation.
The F-22 only performs well in carefully scripted wargame scenarios.
Any time the script has been ignored it's performed poorly. Hence why the USAF don't like taking it to wargames anymore, they're quite proud of it see.

The conformal fuel tanks on the Advanced Super Hornet demonstrator

Then make that point separate from replying to me about Europe having anything in development.

Even turkey is developing a 5th gen stealth, mate.

...

Underrated.

Cancelling the ASF-14 SuperDuperUberTomcat for the sake of "F"/A-18E/F was a mistake.

Doesn't make it any less shit, bro. Every aircraft now days can carry conformals.

Do you claim he's wrong?

the A-12 looks like a UFO

We dont even need an F-35 to destroy the jew, its just a tool to be used on our fellow Orthodox Christian brothers to the east as the hand rubbers watch with glee

(damn, posted before I could get my thought out)
The conformal fuel tanks on the Advanced Super Hornet demonstrator are nice but both only carry 3500 lbs of fuel, which is what ONE external tank would carry. Usually to do any heavy mission (not just providing CAS or bombing one shack) you need two, or a tanker which would require ANOTHER E/F with buddy fueling. Apparently the CFTs reduce drag by forming the flow better over the wing, BUT we have no idea what they'd do to the performance of the aircraft, let alone the added weight for carrier take-off.

Agreed, but they were looking ahead to the F/A-XX, which was planned to be a Navalized Swing Wing F-22, so the Navy was creaming their pants over that and wanted something to bide their time until they got it (20 years later they're still waiting)

Sounds like it would be a complete pig.

lel

The F-35 is fucking shit but it's not fucking shit enough to get destroyed by turd world subhumans. The only thing F-35 pilots have to worry about is exploding on the runway. If they manage to make it into the air they'll be fine.

They also have to worry about pulling too many Gs and fracturing their skulls or maybe even giving themselves brain damage.

Probably would have been. But at the time it wasn't really known the full performance or cost of an F-22 so they really only had estimations.
What I really wish they would have done was not combine every mission into one aircraft, that was the problem of the F-111B and the problem with the F-35. But that's just one man's opinion on a Asiatic Oceanographic Observations Craic

Also, unlike most here, I think the X-32 is shit, more shit than the X/F-35

Gas yourself
What you traitors did doesn't matter. Even if Mike is part jewish, he furthered our cause and we're not getting rid of him or going anywhere. You fags are just jealous that the doxxing made us stronger by purging the weak. As far as the 100k+ in donations, it went where it was needed, and that's all you faggots need to know.

radio.therightstuff.biz/2017/02/03/the-daily-shoah-127-commies-r-duh-real-fascists/

Turkey is getting the F-35, they do not have the scientific expertise or the industrial base to make their own even if they did a complete teardown of an F-35 and tried to reverse engineer it.

What a load of bullshit. Your posts read like russian fanfic. Go masturbate somewhere else.

F-22 has performed extremely well in wargames, even with noob pilots against veterans. They also are often flying in these wargames with radar reflectors bolted on to them to negate their stealth advantage. The Eurofighter hasn't proven superior to anything, yet. Denmark has opted for F-35 instead of Eurofighter, and the UK wants to have both.
WTF are you talking about? The only G problem so far is that ejecting with the HMD can put too much stress on a pilot's neck and potentially kill them. Lighter HMDs are in the works to fix it anyway.

I like Trump.
F-35 is still a shit plane though.

is pretending to be illiterate an epic pol meme i'm not aware of?

At least he got us a discount, so there's that. I don't think Trump's plan was ever to actually replace the thing. He just made the Boeing bluff to get Lockheed to lower the price.

Most in both Holla Forums and /k/ agree with you but I personally liked the smiling little fugly more, due to emotional attachment to A-7. Also intuituvely it gave me the impression it would make for a better VTOL than the F-35 but I have nothing solid to back that up other than fitting more the fugly character of older VTOL designs.

It strikes me as weird that they did not really consider that airframe-shape induced RCS reduction would significantly hamper aerodynamics. Pic semi related, the only genuine stealth design that does not seem to have serious aerodynamic drawbacks.

I will say though that I'm glad Trump told those Lockheed kikes to get their shit together.

Google TFX. Roaches are retards but not retarded enough to not try reverse engineer the F-35 into the same plane but with two EJ200 engines instead.

See the lockheed shill is here already.

Btw half of the appeal to ridicule "bingo" arguments are actually factual.

Okay whatever the fuck semantics

It's still a 21% bonus than what was expected; even 5% is nice and chunky

...

kill yourself.

Every single manned aircraft is a total waste of money. Because so much of it has to focus on keeping its internal meatbag alive, it will never be able to turn, fight, or accelerate like an unmanned aircraft can. All of this money, all of these buckets and buckets of money, should go to producing a million cheap ass unmanned drones capable of dogfighting or expending themselves as missiles as the circumstances require.

I like the A-7, but I think the Fugly of the A-6 has it beat.

Stealth very in-flux at the time, they wanted to implement what they learned from the F-117 to try to reduce costs of stealth. At first the A-12 was supposed to be a "silver bullet" like the F-117, attacking the enemy air defenses so that less capable attackers could perform their mission uncontested. But after the A-12 was canceled, the JSF was chosen to pick up that mission. they realized the advantage to stealth is that it not only would ground radar not see you, but air radar as well, so they could have some attacking F-35 with ordnance on their wings out back with another F-35 miles ahead picking off enemy air and ground defenses before the attack configured F-35 arrived- all while training the same pilots and same maintenance men to service one type of aircraft instead of a whole bunch of aircraft for each mission.
I don't like the idea of it, but it's a matter of how you want to spread your money. It would probably cost the same or more money to design an aircraft for each mission than to design one to cover all missions, especially if some missions aren't really utilized all of the time like Fleet Air Defense or Anti-Sub warfare.

Also, the X-32 wasn't even ready for the fly off with the X-35, they had to physically remove part of the intake for VTOL because they were having trouble with fitting the hydraulics.

The F22 hasn't flown in wargames for a while.
And it was only in early ones it went with the reflectors.

Also F-35s helmet is too heavy. It's the same cause of the ejector seat problems.
Also it's not potentially kill them. It's "IT WILL" kill them.
Physical evaluations of pilots who have flown F-35s over a prolonged period have shown a consistent pattern of fractures in the forehead region of the skull. One pilot is even believed to have suffered minor brain damage.

When you pull high G in the F-35 the weight of the helmet presses against your skull.
Causing the damage.

It's worse with the carrier variant. They've done some testing supposedly and according to rumour a pilot suffered a dislocated vertebrae while performing a carrier landing.

And they can't make the helmet any lighter. They've tried everything they can and now have to rely on technology that doesn't exist and isn't even in the works to make the helmet light enough to be safely worn.

Problem with drones is they're not flawless.
Even the Iranians have managed to hijack the control signals for US drones.
Plus if an airforce relies primarily on drones then any enemy is just going to go "Well fuck it. Lets deny them ANY air support whatsoever at the cost of convenient communications" and jam the airwaves to the point where no signal can get through.

...

How does it feel to be gay?

Crazy to think about. This thing has had so much time and money put into it, you'd think it'd be near perfect, not full of flaws.

Is $728m even a lot? I remember this project costing several hundred billions.

To be fair he makes a lot of tweets about a lot of things.

Jesus look at this thing.
You're telling me they can't just get a fucking Oculus Rift or something? They couldn't fucking move some of the functionality to a control panel display or a window display? Look at that forehead bulge, what the fuck did they cram in there a GTX 1080?

That's savings. I suck at math but reading the article has me thinking each plane was sold for $10 million each, which is cheap.

F-22 flew at Red Flag just recently.

I can't find anything that claims that the HMD weight is a problem in any scenario other than ejection. Even then, its only an elevated risk of injury, not a 100% chance.

All of that is old news.
The only pilots having these problems were all of small stature, which is why they temporarily "fixed" the problem by excluding every Pilot below under 136 pounds from the program. Small guys didn't fly so good, no big guys had these problems.

As of now the manufacturers claim they have entirely fixed the problems but until testing reports are public we have to take their word for it.

I'll bet you that thing requires 3 reboots per dogfight.

meanwhile….
…cheap ass toy in video related can slap this expensive piece of flying microsoft windows from the sky in a > 400mi radius without any hassle.

I don't know anything about the S-300 but i have to admire their history of making effective military hardware on a budget.

No the pilots suffering immediate and obvious problems in general use were small people.
The skull fractures and dislocated vertebrae came after that change.

Oh they brought it out for red flag? That's surprising.
I'd heard everyone had been pestering them to but the USAF kept screaming no.
Dread to think what kind of script the other participants had to agree to.

The S-300 was similar to patriot but with extended capabilities. The S-400 was developed with nuking anti-stealth toys in mind. Both S-400 and S-300 are capable of targeting balistic missiles, low flying cruise missiles and pretty much everything burgers can hurl at Ivan, thus force them to a ground offensive.
The S-3/400 can also nuke satelites. This pretty much enables Ivan to drop all burger sattelites within a few minutes with exception to the ones in very high orbit who have some forms of counter measures (e.g. evasive burn)

The S-500 is already in development and it will be a fucking monster with a range of over fucking 600mi.

Russkies military industry doctrine always knew that americans could built better tech toys, so they focused on technology which can render them useless (air defense, stealth detection, EMP technology etc.).

...

F-35 does have decent AOA ability anyway.
This is a serious issue, and if they don't fix the fucking helmet, then the whole plane may as well be shit. Not only is the weight bad (although they claimed a lightweight helmet worked last year), one pilot complained that they had trouble seeing some targets with it because there wasn't enough room in the cockpit for it.
This one no one can justify

These are just some of the arguments, I don't have the energy right now to comment on all of them. Keep in mind I never said the F-35 was a good plane.

It's not on the cost of the whole program but on this batch of 90 planes. It's like 7% or 8% less per plane than the previous batch. Read the article for details.

Flying wings are my fetish.

a 3000 year old Mig-29 is able to fuck F-35. Forgot the last dog fight tests where they flew in a german pilot who used to fly them and rekt several F-35 in dogfights?

Yeah, he was German, so that is an obvious advantage, but still. Mig29 mang.

defensetech.org/2015/08/12/analyst-russian-mig-29-and-su-27-top-american-f-35/

Prior to obtaining the S-300s. Iran already had a desperado strategy of choking up the strait of Hormuz with suicide boats of which there was no counter.

Which is why obongo had to come up with the Iranian deal in the first place. Now there's practically no way forward now unless the F-35 is actually a Gundam all along.

It doesn't matter if Trump saves over a billion, 2 billion, 50 billion or 100 billion.
The plane is a waste. By the time it is fully deployed it will be outclassed and face multiple far more economical counters.

This might be efficient in peacetime or during low intensity conflicts where you're not at risk of losing your 100 million dollar plane, but it isn't during a war with a respectable power.

You're going to lose planes, in which case it's cheaper to mass produce mission specific aircraft rather than an expensive jack of all trades.
ASW, ground attack, taking out air defenses, air superiority, close air support, carrier based operations: All of these have different requirements. And having one plane able to perform all of these at a high level is simply not economical during a war of attrition.

top man

So can we really attribute this to Trump?

Iran did nothing wrong. Neocons, Yinon plan, kikes et al can go fuck themselves, and Trump can go fuck himself too if he tries to drag us into more bullshit with Iran over nothing.

Decent, but not good. Its EODAS system is designed to help eliminate its shortcomings in that regard. Also, the MiG-29 is well known for its kinematic performance, the older models haven't done well in BVR combat, though. The MiG-29M, K and MiG-35 though may change that, considering they can use the Zhuk-A or AE (which is standard on MiG-35). Of its known performance, its still outclassed by American radars, but its an improvement. The Irbis-E, N036 and N011M radars are what I find more impressive.

Another huge issue I forgot to mention as well are its operating costs. It starts at roughly $42,000 per flight hour, nearly double that of current F-16C/Ds. As the aircraft get older and need new parts, they'll increase.

Remember those inflatable decoys from Gundam? I always thought planes could use those. It'd be like chaff that lasts a really long time.

What maneuvers need performing? When was the last time there was a dogfight?

Agh forgot to say, its AoA is good at 50, but the main issues come other flight parameters, like acceleration and sustained turn rate, which Lockheed claims to be comparable to the F-16 and other 4th generation fighters in combat configuration (I'll leave this for you to decide).

Also, your report is shit and others have pointed out some really basic flaws with it.
sage

This made me compare size and weight. If they chose the F-16 for navy, they wouldn't need folding wings. If they chose the F-18 for air force, it wouldn't need extra gear on it. It really does seem backwards the more I think about it.

I don't see how EODAS can mitigate superior AOA of Russian Jets including their high performance missiles. Missile warning and target tracking is one thing, getting out alive is another.

The past shortcommings of BVR in russian jets were more or less planet as they rather focussed on ground-air missiles to drop stealthy targets from afar and move these systems to possible air warfare theatres. If an intursion without g-a cover has to take place, they use different jets and loadouts to compensate.

Their new generation jets which are already in service don't have these BVR shortcommings, because of heavy investment into em warfare. That's why Russians are almost certain that things will take place in close range because they will jam the shit out of each other until optical/infrared target aquisition is possible.

Even old MILFs like pics related?
I'm an advanced bomber guy myself, the XB-70 ALWAYS gets me running

Oh I agree, it will probably cost less per plane, but when you produce a single plane to be a penetration fighter, and then a whole bunch of cheaper jets for every other mission, you have to pay the R&D costs, tooling, training for pilots and maintenance for all of these aircraft, and they usually don't overlap. AND you'll have to spend money to fly every aircraft type so they remain in usable condition (letting aircraft sit too long will require practically an aircraft maintenance tear-apart). So in that respect, you'll probably be paying more. It's a tradeoff, more up front, or more in the ass. I don't like the F-35, but I don't hate it either.

You don't just drop bombs straight and level, even if you're a dedicated bomber. There are delivery maneuvers that evade ground defense and if you fly level you'll be spotted miles away and shot to pieces from even the shittiest ground defenses.

*planned

wtf this jewish typo

Bump on this. Seriously you guys, I'm about to post this on a liberal forum and I don't want to get roasted later.

It allows for missiles to be fired regardless of the target's aspect from the launch aircraft. While there are some high-deflection shots that can't possibly be expected to hit, it greatly improves its abilities.

what is it about the F-35 that's terrible, the hardware? From what I can gather it's an aircraft that has a shit ton of problems and it's only "liked" because of its tacticoolness and ridiculous expense.

I believe the LTV V-1600 (the navalized F-16) still needed folding wings (see pic) and a beefed up landing gear as well as structural enhancements to take the forces of catapult takeoff and tailhook landings. The Navy didn't want any part of the light weight fighter competition and were forced into it by congress.
They then made the argument that the landing angle was too steep, single engine turbines fail too often despite having the F-8, A-7, etc. for years, and it couldn't carry the Sparrow. It couldn't carry the sparrow not because of weight limitations, but because Boyd and Sprey two people who stuck their big (((noses))) into defense required that the radar doesn't have to be top-of-the-line to only give a "snapshot" of the aerial arena which wasn't enough guidance for a Semi-active missile.

Boyd and Sprey (((complained))) forever about the F-14 and F-15 being money pits like everyone does about the F-35, but instead of making suggestions to have long range bomb trucks that could also defend themselves in a sneak fight, they took away money from both F-14 and F-15 programs to fund their pet hot rod projects that were along the lines of "LOOOOOOL just make a fighter simple fam, it's 2EZ."

I was looking it up and found this article as to why the decision was made.

And lots of things change consequently.

Unlikely given that it's most recent fly-away cost in wiki was around 160 million.

It will be a high cost solely anti-sat anti-ballistic weapon though. Upgraded S-400 variants will be the frontline of Russia's anti-air for the next half century.

Comparable to every 4nd gen fighter without an artificial AoA inhibitor except F-18, MiG-29 and Su-27 that blow it out of the water. Still I haven't seen a F-35 video of it pulling the claimed 45^ high alpha without going into controlled stall afterwards.

Given that in clean configuration the F-16 out-accelerates the F-35 in high-trans/low-supersonic I have my doubts over the sustained turn rate claim.

Oh, that's what you mean. Well, the Russian had that with their Archer missile and Mig-29 since a very long time. USAF was scared shitless after the Soviets collapsed and East Germans showed the NATO what toys the mig-29 had, including the Archer missile.

They never knew the Russkies were having this kind of missile with these capabilities.

Right now, they have still upgraded versions of the Archer with fully new missile in development which can do far more than just fire from any possible angle, but what kind of capability it actualls is, is unknown. Maybe we will see in the next MAKS or arms expo in shitskin country (Saudi International Arms expo).

As far as Air combat goes, Russkies can shred burgers. The only question mark remains with naval bourne air combat because of several question marks regarding anti-ship weapons and rumored sea-air weapons on both sides.

[citation needed]
Russkies look good in paper and red flags but in real conflict russian inventory got its shit pushed.

The US is developing compact laser systems that can be fit onto their planes and render any anti-air defense (other than anti-air lasers) useless.

No. The S-X00 are platforms. The missiles each platform can fire are developed independently. Platform wise the S-500 has advanced capabilties towards nuking balistic missiles and satellites, but they can also use the new gen missiles for simple air defence.

Russians develop their shit differently. Burgers build "one system per purpose" while russkies build "one system, several purposes". You can see that principle in their new modular AVMATA design for their new land based combat platform. Same platform but can be used as MBT, Troop Carrier, Tank Support, Ground-Air. It depends what modules will be attached. They can also be swapped in the middle of combat in a matter of minutes afaik.

They also claim AVMATA to be fully capable of unmanned combat.

Yes. Plus their pilots will be able to shoot these lazors from their eyes while farting anti-IR flares.

says the Burger used to bomb towelheads wik AK-47s with B-2s.

...

I'm no engineer or anything but I was recently looking into high powered lasers and this just has me skeptical. That's a ton of energy consumption, where is all that power supposed to come from?

The costs should not be considered when it comes to kebab removal.

Literally his ass. The sheer thermal energy from the friction and the chemical energy contained in his widened full of shit rectuum is enough to power a Death Star tier death ray. they are supposed to blind IR sensors

Thats alright, but don't compare shitskins to sikrit slav tech acrobatics.

...

...

Beamed power using satellites. A lot of the latest military comsats have huge capacitor banks built in (this has never been revealed publicly but they are much larger than they need to be so its a bit of an open secret), but the real breakthrough is in high power directional microwave transmission tech which makes beamed power (with a limit of ~15 second pulses) quite practical.
The plane's absorbing antennae are incorporated into the radar absorbing stealth tech, so its stealthiness also allows it to absorb and rectify the high power beam from the satellite network.
This is all highly classified but true. The laser can't be integrated into the satellites themselves since the optical systems would have to be too large due to the distance and have lots of moving (for aiming) parts with no maintenance.
The microwave transmitters don't have this problem since they simply use a phased antenna array, just like radar systems.

The lasers are a huge array of solid state lasers, with large surface area compared to a single big laser. A fuel loop runs through them for cooling. Coking was actually an issue for a while but they seem to have solved it.

I always love reading these threads but honestly think none of this shit will ever get tested against a worthwhile adversary. At least not on any large scale, something like Syria maybe where a little bit of highish-end east vs west tech plays electronic tag mostly as a test.

Why don't they just set up some sort of neck and shoulder rig to displace the weight of the helmet?

S-500 is several systems. One is straight up ground to air ABM. Another is a turbojet powered missile with extreme range, 1500km coverage from one system, for defeating AWACS and fighters. Another is a jumbo jet mounted set of SAMs for ASAT and rapid response ABM work.

Russian system names are mostly counterespionage measures.

S-200 was a fixed long range air defense system, with fixed radars and fixed missiles. S-300 was a truck mounted version of S-200. There are 19 broad S-300 systems with 64 different variants (all added).
S-400 is an S-300 system with all functions integrated, anti-ballistic, anti-fighter, self-protective, electronic countermeasures, and so on. With improvements added to all systems.
S-500 is going to be an S-300 with some neat tricks up its sleeve, like being able to be mounted on a flying jumbo-jet platform, being able to have missiles powered by turbojets with 1500km ranges, being able to have missiles which can seek out and recognize targets on their own (like AWACS), being able to reach beyong LEO to knock down enemy sattelites and so on… all wrapped together with more mundane abilities to kill enemy fighters and knock down cruise missiles.

All Almaz-Antey missiles are related to each other, the evolution is entirely fluid.

A single S-400 system is a minimum of 8 trucks, but can include a network of hundreds of trucks. Most of those trucks receive continual improvements which aren't tracked except in obscure alphanumeric codes (55K6E). All this to make it harder for enemy pilots to understand what they're facing.

Right now Chink mobile air defense missiles are superior to American.

Take a moment to process that.

Bretty good explanation, but he doesn't go into the fact that ==THE NAVY DIDN'T WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE LIGHTWEIGHT FIGHTER IN THE FIRST PLACE REEEEEE==
The F-14 was developed with bomb racks from Grumman back in the 70's and the Navy sat on using it until the 90's, the LWF was forced on them to "lower costs by having a common cheap fighter." This just meant that the Navy had to pay for R&D, tooling, and training for an unneeded aircraft. In the early 2000's the Navy tried to save the F-14 by putting all of their money to upgrade it, but instead Dick Cheney forced them to move it F/A-18 development and cancelled support for the F-14 because he had shares in Boeing (which was merging with McDonnell Douglas because ol' Dick cancelled the A-12).

You still can, but it'll never be a prop-driven flying wing with no computer stability all manual, all day

Why don't we have good mobile air defense missiles? Too much focus on that super high end ballistic missile defense shit?

No we simply don't expect ever to need air defense, our generals cannot even conceive of it.

If we had good air defense missiles, where would we put them? California? 19,800 km of the pacific protect America from any attack there plus a forward operating base known as hawaii. Would we put it in New York, because of the threat of Liberian invasion? The only two countries within fighter reach of us are Canada and Mexico, both can be crushed in days. As for our forces invading someone else, we just make sure the people we want to invade don't have a stable air force, and we send in our fighters to clean them up first.

There's simply no need for air defense for America, we don't need it at home, and we don't need it abroad.

Russia on the other hand has a philosophy of area denial, which has over time evolved to serve as a perfect foil to our own combat philosophies. Not because Russians are smarter, but because they want to be sure they can counter us.

Bullshit, they were developing the anti-missile laser platform for a long time and Obama canceled the project in 2009 despite it making steady progress.

Russian air-defense systems would sound a lot more impressive if they had an actual meaningful combat record. Instead, every time they've been put up against western SEAD tactics they've failed miserably.

The usual excuses of "export grade" and "obsolete technology" doesn't hold much water when they fail year after year after year.

Intredasting, thanks.

Are there any fiction or non-fiction works out there that describe combat philosophies or doctrine of both Russia and the US/NATO? Like something fun to read that plays out a scenario of major multitheater warfare between the two sides, realistically and recent? Or a game that lets one simulate this?

I've read 'Suvorov: Inside the Soviet Army' but that's out of date and is not quite what I'm imagining.

You're a fucking idiot.

It's just designed to do too much shit because retards think it will save money. It's like this; you have the need for cheap transports that can carry 12 guys, not necessarily military. Incidentally you have the need for a fast armored road transport, and terrain transport and a water transport suitable for lakes and rivers, ie. a boat. That means you need to design and build three different platforms and that costs bucks. Wouldn't it be better if you made just one that can do all three things??

That's what idiots think and you end up with a horrible clusterfuck of a mess that can't do anything well because everything has to be a huge fucking compromise. It will suck as a boat because it has wheels poking out causing massive drag and weighting it down, it will suck in the terrain because its hull shape will get it stuck on everything and it sucks on the road because it had the suspension of a terrain vehicle and out of the water it has the aerodynamics of a barn.

To fix some of this you try a bunch of shit like adaptive and retractable suspensions which makes the fucking thing cost a fortune more than the three different platforms would, it's a fucking nightmare to service and keep parts for and it still works like shit. Congratulations, you've made an abomination like the F-35 Lightning II. It's design process was basically

You can do cheap multi role, like the Gripen, if you have realistic expectations, and if you can only afford one plane for your armed forces then multi role is a fair option. It's basically a moderately priced fighter that was designed with instrumentation and interfaces that would allow it to do recon and attack adequately without further modifications. No stealth, no fucking VTOL or other shit crammed into a tiny plane. The result it that it can do the roles well but has no expectations of excelling in anything, and by giving up on that it is still well priced.

If you do the same thing the F-35 way and expect it to be the hot shit at everything you are going to bleed money out the ass because of it. A dedicated attacker will always be a better attacker than a fighter/attacker compromise of the same price. If you still want the same attack performance you need to pay more for that F/A plane. If you want to add in stealth and still not compromise on performance you need to pay way more. If you then want it to VTOL you need to pay way way more. If you then want to fit all this shit in a tiny plane you'll be paying the F-35 program.

TL;DR: If you need top performance and you can conceivably afford multiple platforms then buy multiple platforms. It's cheaper to make three planes that are top performing in their respective area than trying to make one that can excel at all three. No one tries an approach like building a super car that can win in F1, LeMons and the Dakar rally to "split the cost" over three trophies, because the idea is fucking retarded. Well, no one except politicians. God bless democracy.

Isn't it time we design new planes? This is the Trumpenreich, we deserve some new hi-tech shit.

It doesn't help that it has a multi-second screen lag

The Gripen is pretty sexy tbh, my favorite modern fighter for it's small simple design.

Make A-10, the sequel

Then they might as well just project the damn display on to the windows and be done with it. What a dumb design.

The difference between the DAS and Russian systems is that the DAS can lock on from any angle. You are correct about the Russians having the first functioning helmet mounted sight though. The EODAS is a lot more than just a sight used on those aircraft.

this thing could be taken down with an AC, artillery and a couple of troops. it would be completely useless during the second stage of invasion.

Sounds flimsy, I wouldn't expect it to last long in a proper world war.

Every single square on both of those bingo sheets are right. Defending the F35 on the internet is a very specific and very weird form of edgy contrarianism, but have fun with it.

I'LL SAY THIS AGAIN. TRUMP IS THE BEST PRESIDENT AMERICA'S EVER HAD SINCE RONALD REAGAN. ANYONE WHO FUCKING STANDS AGAINST HIM IS A GODDAMN TRAITOR AND NEEDS TO BE SHOT.

NATURALLY THE (((MSM))) WILL NEVER REPORT ON THIS LIKE HIS JOB CREATION PROMISES IN WHICH CASE THEY ALL NEED TO HANG

So blame your own government and the Bush and Obongo administration for wasting your money.

Was Iraq using S-300?

Don't they have a greater median IQ being more than 60% White?

Time for XF/A-36!

…Trump is awesome. But it's STILL A SHIT PLANE that can't fucking dogfight if needed. And its stealth capabilities are probably nullified from all the Chinese hacking thanks to their spies with the Clinton mafia.

How is that 'worse'?! It's only good if Iran can defend itself against Kikerael and their bestest goy in class.

That shitty old BUK in Ukraine performed great. Armchair asspulling stands for less than the combat record of those defense systems.

vid related

You're the fucking idiot here.

reagan cucked out on immigration. Trump is superior than that old dead relic.

No current great power weapons have had a meaningful combat record. The only time they have meaningful combat records is when America sells Sabres to one side, and Russia sells Fagots to the other. But by that time, both systems are considered outdated by either superpower.

Do I need to pull up vids of latest Saudi Abrams tanks getting BTFO in Yemen?

Fiction writers have never wrapped their brains around the doctrine of area denial, deep combat, or maskirovka, so there aren't any major examples. A bunch of minor ones though, in the lost fleet series, vorkosigan, honor harrington series, and legacy of aldenata, in descending order of relevance. Ironically the best example is in praxis (aka dread empires fall), the concept of the society in praxis actually evolved from orthodox preachers philosophies, however the tactics being used are by good guys.

But the best way to do it is find a book where the "aliens" are ridiculously powerful and the humans have to find creative ways to survive. One in ten of such books has the author sort of understanding the Russian position vs the ridiculously huge NATO military.

A dude who betrayed USSR and was paid by CIA to write negatively about it. I'm not saying don't listen to him, but understand where he's coming from and take his claims with a grain of salt.

Just watched the hwole movie. It's really good if overacted and they name the fucking jew. Worth the watch.

Okay this is probably a really stupid idea.

But why is there no Air Aircraft carrier. Like a giant floating sky fortress that can hold a dozen planes. I am not a big plane guy so this might be impossible I don't know.

...

thx for the reply, too bad there isn't some book exactly like I was imagining. I'll check out some of those recommendations though.

Also yeah I'm skeptical of any defectors claims but I still found Aquarium entertaining and "Inside the Soviet Army" felt authentic.

I always thought it was interesting that it's republished on a .ru domain and the curator is nicknamed "HOAXER"

militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/index.html

An aircraft carrier is powered by a nuclear generator and it floats all by itself.

windows 95 works though

You could achieve something like that by making it hydrogen-floated. Or better still, use a vacuum chamber.

...

For you.

We should go back to something more basic than planes.

Maybe Trump can revive best plane ever?

fake savior confirmed. this will end ugly. the guy is playing a double game and america will lose on all fronts in the end. pity, but not a surprise considering his lack of character. i have gathered enough intel now to make a valid forecast and pol would hate it so you can watch this drama unfold for yourself.

...

Make a country-sized one of those, fill it with gas and send it over to Israel. Make sure there is a giant National Socialist emblem on there so that they fire at it out of extreme fear, only for it to explode and douse the whole country in napalm.

Irrelevant. Even many 4th gen aircraft have built-in redundancy to prevent G-overload from going this far. Even if the pilot blacks out, the plane can level itself off (assuming it has enough altitude). There's declassified USAF footage of this habbening in an F16

What do you expect? Its the military not some $200k in sales a year small business trying to eek out a decent living for its owner. There are a lot of computer based tasks that the military doesnt outright depend upon the outcome of… But for critical defense systems and stuff like logistics they absolutely require a system that is going to do 3 things. Work, work well, and work everytime.

:^)

...

So pissed king nigger cancelled based F22 also

Underrated post

Shouldn't buying them at all. We're spending money we don't have for crap we don't need. "What a savings."

The Panzerhaubitze 2000 uses fucking Windows Vista for its firing computer

nigger our strategic defense depends on floppy disks

Raw numbers, mang. The US has roughly an equal number of whites (probably more, considering the Russian population is at best only 90% white) with a higher mean IQ.

And that isnt bad. Floppy disk are resilient, and can last a long time.

...

...

I want to habeeb…

Who designed this helmet? H.R. Giger?

If you mean something like pic related it's mainly because with increase of proportions wing area, and consequently lift, increases at a rate of ^2 while volume, and consequently weight, increase at a rate of ^3, therefore that shit would need to be way above supersonic to stay afloat, and even if it did, there are no contemporary materials strong enough to keep it from being torn apart by its own lift.

There were experimental nuclear powered airplanes that worked just fine, if you exclude the irradiated crew part. If there was something that big isolating radiation would not be an issue.

I'm with this guy. A carrier-zeppelin can theoretically work.

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

Lockheed BTFO

Fuck off to the nearest slant-eyed mixing enabler thread, Chaim.

Ask yourself why conventional carriers exist - air and water are mediums with different properties.

They are massive, which allows them to store lots of aircraft, but they're also capable of moving worldwide. Being on water also makes them accessible for rearmament, repair, even while they're underway. None of this is possible with an airborne aircraft carrier, which would have to be light or fail, and couldn't repair itself, or really have global reach with years of independence from resupply.

An airborne spacecraft carrier would be possible though, such as a really high altitude airship launching space fighters into fractional orbit.

For the same reason, space and air are two different mediums with different properties, so it's possible to take advantage of the best of both. Soviets did something like it with a massive aircraft that carried smaller orbital fighters and launched them from high altitude.

All current eurocanards are superior to the F-35.

The super is a fine fit for the missions it's been engaged in. It's not a brilliant aircraft and its fuel burn is quite shit but it's been quite proficient at dropping GBU's on mudshits and at least it's been cheaper per flight hour than the F-14. Buddy refueling is also a neat feature.

Obviously it's inferior to any actual air superiority fighter but it's not ever had to engage one so what fucking difference does it makes?

Tomahawks are slow as shit, tracking and engaging them is really no harder than tracking and engaging any other sub-sonic object.

When the israelis took delivery of their first F-35 it was delayed in Italy because it couldn't take off in cat 3 conditions, which commercial pilots fly approaches in regularly.

Once we fully internalize this fact, suddenly using pic related makes more sense than using a halfway-measure like F-18.

The only reason why the F-35 was required to have VTOL in the first place was so the MUHREENS could operate off LHD's but if the french can operate Rafale's off their drydock Queen of a carrier — which is the same fucking length as a Wasp — then why the fuck can't we develop an aircraft that are able to do the same without compromising its capabilities?

The Bronco would've been badass too with some basic upgrades to bring it up to par with modern standards.

The eurocanard designs are great… for 4th gen. Superior maneuverability won't mean that much when they get detected first, fired upon first, and forced to expend all of their energy dodging incoming fire. They also have to use standoff weapons for SEAD since they can't penetrate SAM umbrellas. And before you give me that "improved radar technology will negate stealth" BULLSHIT, remember that if you can detect a stealth aircraft at a certain range, you can detect a non-stealth aircraft at several multiples of that range. Gen 4 will be even more vulnerable to radars powerful enough to detect, track, and lock on to a gen 5.

The Charles de Gaulle has steam catapults. There is no way a loaded Rafale could get off of that deck without being launched. The F-35B gets shit on a lot, but consider that it is replacing the fucking HARRIER, an ancient aircraft with very limited capability which can't even go supersonic. Meanwhile, the F-35B is going to have not just supersonic capability, but motherfucking supercruise. The F-35B is a massive increase in operational capabilities for our LHDs.

Should have cancelled the program full-stop.

It's possible to build a cheap glide bomb with a glide ratio of 25:1.
Launched from 16km by a propeller aircraft it would have a range of 400km.
Long range air defense used by 99% of countries is 300km.
Long range air defense used by Russia has a range of 400km.

So pic #1 could launch a bomb like pic #2 from 400km, turn around, and moonwalk away before pic #3 could defend itself.

tl;dr it's possible for a $500k aircraft to do SEAD better than any stealth aircraft.

Fucking LOOOOOOL. The F-35 can launch standoff munitions too you know. That piece of shit aircraft could be easily detected at 400km by radar. F-35 would not. F-35 would also turn around and supercruise away, giving little opportunity for enemies to catch up or intercept it on the outbound. Do it cheaper, sure, but better? Not in this universe or in any parallel universe.

Detected? Maybe.
Engaged? No.

You would have to send fighters to engage it, 400km away, outside the cover of friendly SAM. At that point my 4.5 gen fighters eat yours alive.

But because of it's pylon and bay limitations, only with a glide ratio of 5:1 (max theoretical 10:1). And because it's a shit aircraft, when loaded with weapons and fuel it's top altitude is 13km, so the top range of glide bombs from it is 130km. At that range there exist sensors which can detect it, and it's well within the range of active missiles or a fighter response.

F-35 cannot supercruise.
That is yet another promise Lockheed Martin failed to deliver on.

The Superbug is fit for NO missions. It is subpar in both carriage of weapons and fighting (unless you're in very slow flight, but at that point you're probably hit by a dogfighting missile anyways). The only reason the F-14 started carrying bombs is because the legacy F/A-18 didn't have the carrying capacity that the F-14 did during Desert Storm I. And at the time the FLIR wasn't integrated, so A-6 had to spot for it.
While they added pylons to the F/A-18 Super, Boeing royally screwed the wing, so the pylons had to be twisted outward making putting dumb bombs on a target almost impossible. The Superbug didn't account for the added fuel weight, so it has about the same range as an F/A-18C, which STILL can't can't fly out of state lines without having to tank up, and the buddy tanker ability uses up half of it's fuel following the strike aircraft to the target, so it's mostly useless. That's why the Navy wants the "refueling drone" because the F/A-18 uses up all of it's fuel just getting to the enemy.

Even if the fuel consumption didn't matter, the F/A-18 doesn't have the speed and maneuverability to get in and out of the target fast enough to avoid ground fire, especially when it ALWAYS has to have an external fuel tank to get on target.
www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-96-98

The Bronco did come back, as the OV-10G+, with APKWS and GPS munitions. But you might as well have bought a Cessna Caravan and told the pilot to throw grenades out of the window while passing by terrorists he saw from his binoculars he'd have to carry.
www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/combat-dragon-ii-demonstrates-ov-10g-bronco-capabilities/

You know, as much as I hate the F-35, your shitty arguments are making me dislike it less.

I wouldn't even be surprised if that was your go-to, but my baby will always be the XB-70 (or maybe the F-108)

Who the fuck cares about hypotheticals? The reality of the situation is the F-35 is significantly inferior to air superiority aircraft fielded by credible adversaries, it is just as deficient or more so in any scenario going up against a Flanker for example as any of the eurocanards.

Neither can the F-35, it is nowhere near as stealthy as it is being presented as. The simple fact of the matter is it can't penetrate any current gen integrated air defense network used by Russia or China — which let me remind you they're quite happy to export all over the world — without being detected and fired upon.

The fuck you smoking son? The F-35 can't supercruise, not any of the variants.

holy shit is this embarrassing
one neat trick to win ww3 lol

I thought I made it clear it was an inferior bomb truck and nothing more. Kinda like a thunderchief for a new era with improved low-speed flight characteristics.

The missions for the Superbug are designed around the aircraft limitations, not the envelope of the mission. Hell, the F-14 was designed with bombing capability from the factory (it was in the RFP, so Grumman had to perform it or it would be a "deficient" aircraft). In that fact, the F-14 was more of a Multi-role fighter than an air superiority fighter, especially since it's low speed isn't as up to snuff as the F/A-18 (if the F/A-18 wasn't carrying anything, but it will be because of fuel limitations).
At least the F-105 had the internal bay that could perform a nuclear strike OR carry extra fuel without compromising aerodynamics. AND the F-105 had A LOT of power at Sea Level to GTFO. The F/A-18 can go supersonic, but not at sea level, and not with something on a pylon (again, the external fuel tanks problem).

If they wanted a bomb truck, they should have made the A-6F (since it already had standoff weapons) and integrated AIM-120s instead of supporting this wreck of a plane.

No propeller driven aircraft is going to be sent in for SEAD, ever. Unless you're bombing third world terrorists, there will be enemy aircraft in the AO. Even Iraq was able to put jets in the air in 2003. Any NATO military would use something like a cruise missile if a gen 4 or 5 fighter can't do it. Also, you're gen 4.5 fighters can't carry 400km range bombs either, faggot. They have to fly into the same fucking SAM umbrella while being detected for longer and being easier to lock onto.

Afterburning up to mach 1.6 and coasting down to mach 1.2 may not be "supercruise" by the strictest definition, but in practice it is just fine. Eurofighters can only do about mach 1.3 supercruise with a combat load.

Everything about these conversations is about hypotheticals you retard. The whole fucking "muh turn rate" argument is a about a hypothetical dogfight when all modern fighters, gen 4.5 included, are geared towards BVR.

As for SAM's, if F-35 is screwed against them, then every single other aircraft in service or about to be in service is doubly screwed against them. A radar that can detect an F-35 at 30km can detect a Eurofighter or Su-35 at 300km.

Desert Storm I think, though to call them dogfights would be laughable.

Well I guess Air Superiority won't be on the tactics doctrines for winning WW3. Seems Trump wants a land war… And that's just so fucking stupid.

I wish. The OV-10G+ was only looked at as a low-tech alternative for COIN among our recent…. protectorates. The Tucano was selected instead, and now the Afghan/Iraqi retards are flying them into the ground in record numbers, while our "private contractor pilot trainers" are desperately trying to use it properly and salvage a badly decomposing situation in the ME.

The F-35 can carry one, it's GPS guided, and the glide ratio and parameters are SO SHIT that the F-35 would be within detection and engagement range of a SAM system originally designed in 1951. Like I said here in the comment you responded to.

Original idea please donut steel.

Actually it's not original. There are classified files pointing to government researching exactly this approach via kamikaze drones. Turns out they don't mind wasting a $8 million dollar drone to take out a $60 million SAM site. Project was put on standby until jam-proof guidance system could be made, they were scared of Russian jam trucks fucking with the bomb before it hit.

How many millions of dollars do you want to bet on that?

BVR is completely instrumental, meaning at range all you're seeing is a blip and a ID code. What do you do when enemy fighters use ID codes of civilian aircraft? What do you do when they use ID codes of your own or allied fighters? This is piss easy for Russians, Chinese, half the world, BVR is completely useless in the one situation where it matters - fighting the airforce of a world power.

Ground based IRST can detect it at twice the range as legacy aircraft because it's a flying brick that adiabatically heats the air in front of it as it passes through it. On L band it's as visible as anything of that general size. And lets not talk about it from a side or rear aspect, or with external payload, or with an open bay where it's as visible as many 4.5 gen aircraft on X band.

You shoot them the fuck down because they are not linked into your encrypted network.

All aircraft heat air as they fly through it, but I very sincerely doubt that the F-35 gets hotter than gen 4 with all kinds of shit hanging off of their wings than when the F-35 is flying on internal stores. Which is why its kind of fat looking, because they moved all that shit inside the airframe to improve stealth and aerodynamics.

So if it is at a disadvantage in those scenarios you listed, why do gen 4.5 get a pass for being like all the time? Stealth is not a binary state of being, its never meant "total radar immunity". It is an advantage that you can leverage though. Even Russia and China are attempting to go with low observable characteristics for their next gen aircraft. Also, long wave radars are shit at target resolution, tend to be large, immobile targets, and are easily jammed.

Hopefully Trump will keep saving so much money on the F-35, Lockheed-Martin will finally give up and cancel it as unprofitable.
Imagine how many of our pilots lives will be saved in any future war.

Isnt the point of the F-35 to evade radar detection? It seems to me an F-35 doing a wild weasel mission will KO the SAM battery before the radar detects it.

ID codes aren't encrypted, especially civilian ID codes. They can't be, otherwise no one could read them.
Military codes are eminently crackable by any great power capable of capturing the signals. Which is anyone except spics, durkas and niggers.

So your decision to attack all codes just destroyed an airplane full of allied diplomats, or an allied fighter. Your allies change sides, and you're that much further from victory.
Or you downed an airplane full of civilians belonging to a third country, they join the war on the enemy side, and you're that much further from victory. This would have happened in Ukraine if the rebels shot down a major countrys aircraft, and all because they didn't have the Buk IFF truck.

A single shot in the air costs thousands of lives on the ground.

Internal stores means all of the external stores are papered-over by stealth skin. And this skin remains in place even after the stores and fuel are expended, because its an extension of the aircraft.

Hanging stores are far more aerodynamic.

Because they're more useful, cheaper and more maneuverable for a relatively similar value in front aspect stealth - F-35 being less visible in x-band, more on infrared.

Because even they realize they'll have to bomb durkas at some point. America can't play world police forever, and Russia and China are positioning themselves to take bites out of the globe when possible.

Also have you seen their stealth aircraft? Totally outperform F-35, far more practical.

1950s called, they want their radars back.

Modern L band are LPI first of all, meaning they're difficult to impossible to detect. They're also extremely difficult to jam, 3D capable, truck mobile, and capable of resolving a target.

And by modern I mean like 1990.
radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/02.surv/karte013.en.html
almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/1219/1241/1339

It's still trash and gets out flown by an F-16.

It still cost us $1.5 TRILLION to for the fucking development program.

The F-35 was a mistake.

The F-35 is less stealthy than the F-117, the F-117 was vulnerable to ancient 1960s missiles.

Global powers have had 18 years since the F-117 downing to figure out ways to improve the ability to shoot down stealth aircraft.

Even worse the F-117 is so unstable, one of the planes fell apart in the air because a crewman forgot to put a single bolt back in one of the vertical tailfins.

Now you know why they mothballed the entire 52 plane fleet all of a sudden. Sure it worked fine when dive bombing defenseless Panamanians in 1989, but when going up against an enemy that actually shoots back its a deathtrap and a hard to fly deathtrap at that.

One of the Nighthawk's mistakes is that the radar reflecting design is all on top of the plane. The underside is all flat. I can't remember where I read this but it's said to be the reason for that. I don't really believe this explanation because the Spirit is flat too.
I just want to know why it's considered a fighter instead of an attacker.

Its actually a bomber, because like the F-35, the F-117 carried only 1-2 bombs inside its internal stores. It didn't need missiles or guns because its role was to take out high value ground targets. The B-2 was still not done yet.

HHHNNNNNNNNNNGGGG

You are a fucking retard.

IFF transponders are 80's tech. I'm talking about encrypted information sharing networks, which was half of the reason to go to gen 5 in the first place.

HAHAHAHAHAHA LOOOOOL shut the fuck up you have no idea what you are talking about. Also, explain why the T-50 and J-20 will have internal stores?

Wrong again. Gen 4.5 tend to have RCS values at least 10 times higher than gen 5. Which has a fairly linear relationship with how far away any given radar can detect them.

China doesn't have the metallurgy to produce proper engines for the J-20, or create stealth materials as effective as the F-35s. They are dumping tons of money into those projects, so we'll see, but they are not there yet. As for Russia, Sukhoi engineers have already stated that they cannot match the F-35 in electronic capability.

Reality called. X-band is more efficient. So if they have to rely on long wave while the US can still use X-band, we have the advantage. Also, its really hard to mount a long wave radar to an aircraft, so stealth characteristics against the X-band are always useful.

Wrong again. Also, the F-117 that was shot down only happened because the Air Force got ultra complacent.

I want to see one of these in flight.

In 2003, Iraq had better than 1960s air defense tech, and the F-117 flew over them with IMPUNITY. 2 of them flew a deep strike mission to drop bunker busters on a suspected Saddam hiding place, before the shock and awe campaign so the Iraqis were on high alert for the impending invasion.

Other way around, the bottom is the best part. It's built that way to deflect radar from ground stations.

Unvarnished optimism.

It was also rooted in the German Lampyridae project, literally the first stealth aircraft based on Soviet math, and the Lampyridae was a fighter.

Datalinks? You're literally going to shoot everything not datalinked to you? Be careful who you call a retard.

Because it's the only way to make them stealthy? Both T-50 and J-20 are less aerodynamic than 4.5 gen, and have a larger IR signature.

Front aspect stealth in terms of ALL BANDS NOT JUST THE ONE WHICH THE RCS VALUE IS LOWERED FOR.

No, it's not. Image #1.

Image #2, 3, 4.

Arabs suck at war, what else is new.

Watch out. Coming through.

I thought I told you already, the F-35 can't detect a Flanker before it detects the F-35, not if it's equipped with an IRBIS-E. It doesn't have the payload either to fire salvos of multiple long-range missiles equipped with a variety of seekers. Oh and it can't supercruise meaning missiles launched by it don't get the "head start" of those coming at it.

You can't avoid the fact that L-band radars are shit at target resolution, and aerial L-bands are not proven at all.

Yeah, and X-band is the optimal band for air combat radars. Even the Irbis-E is optimized for X-band.

If you think that any radar contact in the next air war will not be rigorously cross-checked with the AWACS and other friendly aircraft in the AO, you are a fool and living the past. This is all assuming the enemy can even compromise the IFF codes, which even if they did, they would be promptly rotated.

You're graph sucks and does not line up with public records of detection ranges of those radars for the given RCS values.

So I have one asshole telling me that since the F-35 is stealth against X-band, that Russia will use L-band to counter it. Then I have this asshole telling me that Russia's current X-band radar already counters it.

Well it does, having L-band radars simplifies the task of tracking the F-35 but it's not invisible to x-band either.

Every AWACS uses an L-band (or S-band) antenna.

A powerful enough X-band can detect an F-35. It's RCS is reduced, not erased.

Ok I'm done talking to someone who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'll just remind people you're an idiot.

Kinetic conservation is more than useful after evasive maneuvers.

Stealth is not invisible to X-bands, just harder to detect and the range of an X-band against a stealth is not inversely proportional to the stealth's RCS.

AWACS radars are FUCKING MASSIVE. You are not going to get the same results cramming it into a fighter like you were claiming, which is what I was refuting. Quit moving the goalposts. I also don't claim "stealth" equates to invisibility, but to claim that an Su-35 has the advantage in detection range with X-band radars is fucking laughable.

It has L-bands on its wings.

L-band doesn't guide missiles onto targets.

This.

Stealth is for when you've given up on being strong, that your final resort is being sneaky and hoping you can meme a weakpoint by the time you get there.

It guides X-bands to targets though.

Hey plane-friend, off topic but muh granpappy ganked this from some sort of high office after D-day.
Does it have a market or is it worth anything?

bingooooo

You're an idiot, and you don't know what you're talking about.

Helmet is actually so big that during testing it snapped a test-dummys head off on ejection.

About 150k

You lucky fuck… If you sell it, will you fund som RWDS armor programs?

it's super effective against 777's!

Wow! It's fucking nothing!

1st image

Yes he can.

Russians have figured out how to signal process L-band into far more accuracy than is needed for a BVR missile shot. They do it by using two L band antennas, and interpolate the returns. This is why their frontline fighters can have two L-band antennas, of the ACTIVE electronic scan variety, to do the heavy lifting of detecting stealth fighters.

Also most AEW systems have L-band on some level because they're great at sweeping large areas. Airborne L-band has been used since the very start as well, since WWII nigh fighters, it's more proven than the X band in fact. The foundation of the AWACS concept was a fighter called TBF Avenger mounting a small radome under the aircraft housing an L-band radar.

You're wrong on every level.

1-2GHz L-band EM waves are also particularly useful for penetrating cloud coverage. Ka, Ku, X band and all of the higher frequencies start getting attenuated far too much by water droplets in the clouds, but the lower frequency and longer wavelength L-band doesn't suffer as much from it. Once you get even higher, approaching 60GHz+, the EM wave starts getting attenuated by the fucking air itself and has trouble traveling further than a few feet.

If it's legit, it could in fact be worth some money as a curiosity or maybe as the centerpiece of an aviation buff's collection, but you'd have to get it's provenance sorted out for that to happen.

As someone who genuinely loves WW2 German aircraft, all I can say is, if it's what I think it is, you're one lucky fuck.
I'm jealous.

Fuck really?
I'll have to find the appropriate channels to sort of selling it.
I figured it was some sort of wind tunnel test model, or something.

Going to at least buy a goddamn P7 if it pans out.

If that is real, what you have is a wind tunnel test model of the Lippisch P. 11-121.

Here's a link with info., and a picture of the model: nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Lippisch_Nurflugels/p-11/body_p-11.html

I would go to secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/board,21.0.html and make a thread asking for any info on the model. They also have collectors, that if real, would love to add it to their collection.

Fantastic, thanks for the info.

Uhm…NO.

The Iraqis were fooled by the 100 or so drones we launched as part of the 1st wave. The missile crews fired away their inventory thinking they were shooting down fighter and bomber jets when in fact they were hitting useless targets. Then the missile crews, depleted of missiles were easy targets for the F-117s and Tomahwaks that followed.

At that point all the Iraqis had left were AAA, radar guided, very inaccurate compared to missiles. If not for the success of the drone program and the rank idiocy of the Iraqis, the F-117s would have all been easily shot down.

Yep, that makes L-band good search radar.

Microwave or terahertz radar is possible despite being attenuated, it just requires a lot more power to push the signal through. Way more than economical.

Interesting, never heard of that. Any source to read further?

Yea, no.
t. Eurocuck

youtube.com/watch?v=Z2X9PAbu9js

He is talking about planes, not the airforce itself European planes are mostly good, but their airforces itself are underpayed.

That documentary is about 1991. I was talking about the "decapitation" strike right before the invasion in 2003. Does not refute my point.

UK, France, Germany and Greece alone outnumber Russia's 4+gen fighter inventory. Add Italy, Spain, Netherlands and Finland and you already have a insuperable numeric advantage.

I'm takin the bait like a champ, but you can still spot stealth craft with huge ass radar units on long wavelengths. Serbs did it and shot down an F117. Yeah, it ain't a B2 or an F35, but it's that vaunted "stealth" shit and it's not unbeatable.

Every fifth gen fighter, and for that matter, pretty much every major DoD acquisition ends up getting pretty well ironed out by the time it rolls out. The thing is, it takes way too long and way too much money to get to where it should be. There was that somewhat controversial HBO film about the DoD that centered on the M2 Bradley, and initially it was pretty rough. Surprise, surprise, a lot of things that come out of the defense industry are rough to start and get refined over 3-5+ years of field trials.

Remember that everything starts with a commission. The DoD or a specific branch asks for something. Companies then put out bids and the "best" design wins, or they preselect someone (as I believe they did with Lockheed and the F35) and it's a no-bid contract upon start of the project. At this point, the jets are the easiest part; they might ask GE, Rolls Royce, or whoever else is making them to change the heat profile or lighten them a bit, but otherwise they're usually pretty good to go and the production lines are pretty much already there too. Just about everything else is usually modified pretty heavily or built from the ground up for the airframe.

That said, if you don't believe that Lockheed includes a bit of play room in each $100 million unit, you're either naive or you're a Lockheed shill sipping on some very fine champagne courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Nothing. Multirole craft are fine, it's a good concept and it's been around since WWII. It can't do everything superbly well. An interceptor can climb, burn (with the limitations of less armament and shorter range); CAS can take hits and carry more payload, but sucks more fuel and it's slower (AKA a sitting duck in a dogfight); air superiority basically has everything you want for, well, dominating airspace over foreign lands, but it's not as fast as an interceptor or as good at CAS as a multirole or proper CAS.

F-117 is actually less stealthy than F-35.

Have another bingo card, this thread a shit.

Not really.

Any counterargument to the bingo card, Lockshill-kun?

Using the F-16 as an attack/bomber aircraft was a mistake.