Gib F-22 Raptors
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
JSF is a joke, why won't America sell these bad boys instead?
>"B-Because our allies will reverse-engineer them and/or sell them to our enemies!"
Okay fine, just put a clause in the contract saying they can't do that.
>"B-But they'll just do it anyway!"
Wow, sounds like you have shitty allies but if that's really what you're worried about, just rig every jet with a thermonuclear device set to go off if any part of the plane is detached from the main body.
This isn't exactly rocket science.
They're obsolete desu, they only thing they do better than an F-35 is have a slighter lower RCS
>booby trap every jet with a nuclear bomb
Here's your reply.
>>27799836
>They're obsolete desu, they only thing they do better than an F-35 is have a slighter lower RCS
An order of magnitude less, in fact. Much faster and much more maneuverable, too. Too bad the entire avionics suite needs to be re-engineered since all of the key contractors either no longer make the parts used in the F-22, or went out of business completely.
>80s avionics
With allies like Thailand i don't blame them.
>>27799844
>An order of magnitude less, in fact.
[citation needed]
>>27800002
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm
>F-35: 0.005 m2
>F-22: 0.0001 m2
>>27800065
Just look at all those sources
>>27800065
>no sources
>lists a fuckhuge B-2 as having a smaller RCS than an F-22 or F-35
>>27800072
>>27800067
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20051125.aspx
From the US Air Force itself AND the Global Security link, you gigantic faggots.
>>27800076
>another nosource article
>contradicts global security
kek
>>27800065
>B-2 0.75 ?
>B-2 0.1 ?
>B-2 0.0001
Yes, very believable
>>27800076
>"The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber"
Directly contradicts what your first link says.
Also, the first link lists the B-2 THREE TIMES, at 0.75 (Less stealthy than the Eurofighter), 0.1 (less stealthy than F-35/F-22, and at 0.0001, on par with the F-22
which makes zero sense
There is only one measure of a plane.
>supercruises
>>27800477
F-135 doesn't supercruise =/= F-35 doesn't supercruise, friend.
I mean, no, the F-35 doesn't. But who knows what ADVENT might add.
F-15s can't supercruise to my knowledge, and they're arguably the best 4th gen platform, period.
>>27800072
That link is sounds like bullshit yeah, but to a point larger planes are easier to make stealthy than smaller ones. It sounds odd but it's true.
>>27800528
>F-15, best 4th gen platform,
Agreed
>the F-35 doesn't [supercruise]
Agreed.
We are in agreement my friend!
>pic unrelated
>>27799833
>Then there is this jet with a thermonuclear device set to explode if certain conditions are met.
That isn't a very good business plan.
>>27800528
F-135 is the engine in the F-35
So I don't get where you're heading. If the engine doesn't supercruise, the airframe can't either.
But I agree, I don't see that engine staying with the platform through it's (probably short) life cycle.
>>27800556
ENEMIES OF THE STATE! WE WARN YOU NOT TO SHOOT DOWN OUR AIRCRAFT! YOUR AGGRESSION WILL BE MET WITH NUCLEAR HELLFIRE
What could go wrong?
>>27800584
That its more of a measure of the engine that is getting replaced than it is a measure of a plane like you said.
>>27800528
Please, Tranche 3 Typhoons would fly circles around them
>>27800590
You're right. I'll take three.
>>27799836
But it has a larger internal payload then the F-35 internally.
I don't get, why didn't the AF just stick with F-22's then getting the F-35A?
Is it because politics suck?
>>27800654
Because my high, speed low drag.
And probably politics. Congressmen have to make new jobs in their districts. What better way than NEW UNNECESSARY PROJECTS!!!
>>27800477
supercruise is useless
Still rapes fuel efficiency
Wouldn't it be better to make a fighter that costs 25 million instead of 100 million, then have 4 times as many of them?
>>27800747
By that logic we should be pumping out P51 mustangs and have a few hundred of them per modern fighter....
>>27800761
sure m8
Wanting a cheaper, more cost effective plane, so it can be flown in larger numbers is the same thing as "why not just put missiles on hot air balloons?
>>27799833
> a thermonuclear device set to go off if any part of the plane is detached from the main body.
So in one gets a missile strike it immediately erupts into a nuclear fireball.
Perfect, why wouldn't you do this?!!?
>>27800096
not that anon but it's listing results from different sources that need verification, hence the ? on them
>>27800739
Flying itself rapes fuel efficiency.
>>27800802
no
It's SPEED that rapes fuel efficiency
Flying itself is easier than walking
>>27800806
Sorry, I should have made myself more clear. Yes, you are correct.
Did you know, that if you measure by time to cover 1 bodylength/ energy needed. flying is the most efficient form, and birds are the most efficient flyers.
>>27800821
>Implying birds can supercruise
>>27800886
Where did he imply anything like that?
>>27800886
birds can supercruise
they just don't bother, because it's horrible for fuel efficiency
>>27799833
Shitpost : the post.
Other than that, F-35's are getting sold to fucking TURKEY, which is an imperialistic islamist shithole. THAT'S what you should be worried about.
>>27800938
who's gonna sell em faster to china
israel or turkey?
>>27799833
been kicked out from /k/ with a dragon dildo in your ass, so you decided to shitpost on /v/, huh?
mods, pull your fucking heads from your prostates and start doing your fucking job!
>>27800981
>kicked from /k/
>comes to /v/
OTHER WAY ROUND, FUCK
Ok, that's enoug of the internet for me for today. My daily quota of dying brain cells has been reached
>>27800981
He also posted this shit on /int/
>>27799833
Because we don't want savages like you to have them. But who knows, wait another 20 years and we'll see.
>>27800997
Link /v/ thread.
>>27800947
Shit man, I don't know. I think Israel because jewing goyims is in their nature.
About turkey, well, turkey is like :
>"we friend with america... DEATH TO AMERICA IT IS NOT HALAL !"
>"we friend with israel... DEATH TO ISRAEL WE HATE JEWS !"
>"we friend with europe... DEATH TO EUROPE HAHA SEND IMMIGRANTS AHAH !"
>"we friends with china... FILTHY CHINESE Y U KILL UYGHUR TURK PEOPLE !"
>"we friends with russia... DIRTY RUSSIANS HELP ASSAD WE GIB ARMS TO ISIS !"
>"we friend with arabs... GLORY TO OTOMAN EMPIRE TAKE BACK MECCA !"
...Turkey is like Tourette's syndrome made into a country.
>>27800654
Because it was too expensive in relation to the performance it offered.
>>27800788
>Quantity vs quality
I'm sure you think F-5's with no radar other than for a gunsight, and only carrying two Sidewinders max is the best thing ever, dontcha Sprey?
>>27800739
>supercruise is useless
It depends on the mission.
Canada for instance could probably make use of supercruise for arctic sovereignty patrols.
>>27799833
What's with this hard-on for reviving/upgrading old airframes so many people seem to have nowadays?
They're not going to spend the time and money to set all the manufacturing and stuff back up to start making degraded-ass Raptors, your nuke idea is fucking retarded, and America's already working on it's sixth gen aircraft, so there'd be no point in reproducing Raptors, especially considering people would keep the stupid mentality of "muh old planes are fine!!!" and all that, which would seriously fuck with the sixth-gen aircraft if we don't get a good set of leaders into power, otherwise, I hope we don't repeat these, and the old, mistakes that we had with the Raptor.
Hello
I know you are posting from Thailand, give the fact the exact same thread is on /int/.
I just wonder, is Thailand nogunz?
>>27802665
No.
Like super no.
>>27800947
>implying Israel hasn't already sold everything they know to china already
>>27799844
can someone explain to me like the retard I am why upgrading avionics/electronics is difficult gorrillion dollar project
Isnt it just hardware and software inside the airframe?
Would removing components/wiring from the cockpit/frame and replacing it really cost a mountain of jew gold?
Why would they be designed this why?
How about pic related instead?
>>27800654
The main reason is it was too expensive and, at the time, the F-35 project was to be much cheaper. We all know how that turned out though.
They also wanted to have a different plane they could sell to other nations and yes, dumb politics too.
>>27803303
mixedfeels.jpg
>>27803205
Nobody really anticipated that the electronics of the F-22 would go obsolete as quickly as they did, for as much as they did.
>>27799869
my hero :)
>>27803205
Because it costs a lot to remove and replace those avionics, not to mention designing them to fit into existing spaces. Plus, some planes, like the F-16, just flat out don't have the room to cram more avionics inside, and have to rely on external pods to make up for it.
>>27803303
not real. how could you tease me like this.
The Navy is already pissed that the F35 is taking so long to get online, they're giving four F/A-18A+/C squadrons Super Hornets this year (VFA 94, 113, 146, 192),
The F/A-18F will probably get upgraded to the International Roadmap/Advanced/Block III/"Super-duper" Hornet configuration in 2025ish, since they can't afford to lose the CAS/FAC(A)/Strike capability they provide, and F/A-XX is a long way off (think 2040 IOC)
