http://mil.today/2015/ArmsTrade1/
>>27926879
Great! Too bad they don't have enough reputation to get their hands on the superior F35 Lightning II
How long until they start producing knockoffs that they claim are a completely original design that they totally came up with on their own?
>>27926879
Y'know they've been trying to do this since at least the early 2000's right? I've got an old Stratfor or Janes article summarizing it.
>Slavshit though, doesn't matter.
Guess what jets are about to get new engines?
They don't care about the airframes or avionics, they want engines, that's why they're buying these.
>>27926914
Remember those JANES combat video games? Youd fly jets and helicopters around and shoot shit up.
What do you think they'll call the knock off? J-12? J-13?
>>27926893
No, but they have good enough hackers.
Impressive
China will innovate upon this inferior chassis a truly indigenous monster that is truly 100% made in China.
Cool, now they'll have the engines they'll need for the J-20
Prototype 2017 when?
>>27926914
>Su-35
The AL-31 engine they use in them is theoretically impressive, but they've built (maybe) 40 of them in the 5 years it's been 'in production'.
The evidence is mounting that Russians can keep building the thirty five year old AL-31 design but find anything beyond simple variants a huge pain in the ass to produce.
>>27927639
They still won't be able to make the blades they need.
This is bad news for USA.
China now have fighter which is can wreck both F-35 and F-22
>>27927665
Russians build less then one of them a year and they aren't a match for an F-15 in any realistic combat environment.
>>27927642
>Su-35
>AL-31
Get your facts straight.
>but they've built (maybe) 40 of them in the 5 years it's been 'in production'
48 in three years, including the ones to be delivered in the end of this year.
>>27927677
>Russians build less then one of them a year
12 per year on the average.
>>27927149
The indigenous counterpart, J-11D, is already in the works.
It features an AESA radar compared to the Su-35's PESA.
It only lacks the 117S engines with TVC to be competative, but actually is quite great already, being a non-TVC Su-35 with better avionics and similiar maneuverbility as a standard Flanker - which is not bad, by far.
>>27928016
Fucking hell, how many things do they have in development?
J-20, J-31, the destroyers, that one fuckhueg destroyer and now this
>>27928091
Basically, indigneous replacements for every Russian imported Flanker:
J-16 for the Su-30MKK (J-16 is actually based on the Su-27UBK tandem trainer and not a copy of the Su-30).
J-11D to complement the Su-35 (if 117S engines will be used, they could completely replace the Su-35s that are a bit of a hurt for their logistics)
J-11B that's now the mainstay Flanker of the PLAAF, replacing the earlier Su-27SKs imported in 1992.
J-20 is the next gen fighter to complement with all existing Flankers and heavy fighters.
J-31's fate is still unsure, as the PLAAF isnt really interested so far.
J-16 pic related; China's "Strike Flanker", equipped with AESA and the selection of the newest weapons. Also powered by the indigenous WS-10B.
>>27928091
People often forget that China's the 2nd largest economy in the world.
The Soviets, at their greatest at 1,5 trillion USD, were barely a tenth of China's 2010 GDP of 9,24 trillion USD.
And look what the Soviets developed during that time.
>>27930255
That's not really how it works. Most of the world's economies have grown larger over time. The US economy was only at 6 trillion USD in 1990, vs 17 trillion now.
Russia was basically suffocating to death for 2 decades, so they don't really count there.
What's Russia game play anyway? They should know full well that the Chinese will eventually copy all their shit and start selling Chinese knock offs for less. Russia will lose all their market share in the weapon exports business.
>>27926879
The USA has NOTHING which can do this! Su-35 > F-35.
>>27930318
Chinese Flankers arent offered for export. Only domestic use.
Russia has no problem with other Chinese export fighters, like the JF-17 or the FC-31, since they arent competing for that niche anyway (light fighters/light multirole stealth fighter).
China makes knockoffs, but they actually have an agreement with Suchoi to not intefere in each other's core markets. This is why the Russians still sell RD-93s to China for installation in the JF-17s for Pakistan.
>>27930318
They don't have a choice. The US, France, and Israel is slowly but surely eating up their export game in India, and few other nations can afford to buy large quantities of their equipment. If they don't sell to China they don't have any money to work with, and then their export business will suffer regardless.
>>27930333
Cool trick, now you have 0 airspeed and you take an aim9x to the face.
>>27930340
Sino-Russian trade relationship nowadays is rather natural resources and food now. These 24 Su-35s arent really doing anything. Sure, 2 billion for 24 birds is still quite a lot (so, it most probably involves TOT agreement of some sort), but the 60 Su-35s to be sold to Vietnam are a much bigger business.
>>27926893
why would they need the buy a F35 when 99.99% of all the parts were sub-sub contracted out to be made in China by the company that cut the most corners in the world that would make a circle look like a pointy shape, aka lockheed
>>27930346
The purpose of the trick is merely to demonstrate the Su-35 outstanding maneuverability, which is superior to all American jets.
>>27930353
I don't think Vietnam is buying 60, Russia is supposedly building 60 for export in general.
There's no way in hell Vietnam could afford 60 Su-35s as far as I can tell anyways. It'd literally eat their entire military budget, unless they got a truly MASSIVE discount.
>>27930353
>sell 60 to vietnam, making them their mainstay fighter for the next few decades
>sell 24 for China, so that Chinese aggressor squadrons can use them to simulate VPAF Su-35s.
dayum shame, VPAF...
>>27926879
I know nothing about this jet other than the fact that it is sexy as fug
>>27927600
Kek. So this story was true ? They really hacked the whole f35 program ?
>>27930386
Hey, you know that maneuverability hasn't been relevant in air combat since WW2?
Not even the end of WW2, early on in WW2 everybody realized that maneuverability was second to most other things.
>>27930333
How does maneuvers like these translate into air frame fatigue? Always wondered how the stresses from doing Cobra's all day translate into the standard number of hours expected from the air frame
>>27930518
>F-15, F-16, first modern jets designed for superior subsonic maneuverability, because most real-life air to air combat actually happens in WVR
>soviets counter with Su-27, MiG-29 with super-maneuverability
>ATF program in the USA won by the plane with the most maneuverability. Even has 2D thrust vectoring for extra low speeds.
>wild F35 appears. can't turn for shit because poor design choices early in the program. but that's okay because suddenly maneuverability is not important.
>meanwhile in russia, 3D trust vectoring is perfected
>>27930518
>The Pentagon picks the F-22 over the F-23 specifically because of superior maneuverability
>"Maneuverability doesn't matter now, guys."
>>27930910
...and that, kids, is a superior version of rekt.
congrats.
>>27930950
>>27930910
The pentagon is super paranoid after muh F-4 nogunz in vietnam
Russia just copies whatever the pentagon is doing
I never said maneuverability wasn't important, I said that it shouldn't be THE defining trait of an aircraft anymore.
>>27930910
>muh 3d thrust vectoring
>thinking that tailsliding is a good thing
>>27930544
The speed is very low here, there might be not that much of frame load
>>27931393
Yet another reason these types of maneuvers are just for airshow dickwaving, not actual combat.
>>27927149
J-35 Super Lightning Flanker.
The cheapest of two worlds
>>27927044
/thread
>>27927665
you no speaka good engrish chinaboo.
>>27928016
So China then will have the most advanced and modern flankers? How do they compare to Indian purchased flankers?
The flanker design is just so beautiful, I'm glad the chinese are continuing to develop it.
>>27932468
China really is happy to have selected the Flanker platform, especially as the MiG-29 was also offered to them.
The Flanker has awesome growth potential.
>>27930380
Will this picture ever lose relevancy on /k/?
>>27930333
This is literally pointless except to impress drunks at airshows.
>>27930950
>Pentagon later admits maneuverability doesn't matter.
Ah I remember when /k/ didn't hate modern Russian or German ww2 technology. Guess JIDF has fully taken over.
>>27932557
>Legitimately thinking that one weapons manufacturer is ethically superior to another.
The B-2 had all the same problems as the F-35, only worse. That's why the Pentagon ended up only buying like 20 of them. The original plan was to buy 100 stealth bombers. You just don't remember it.
>>27932468
The most advanced flanker is the PAK-FA.
>>27932591
>that's why the Pentagon ended up only buying like 20 of them
What is "the Cold War ended" for 500, Alex.
>>27932632
No you dumbfuck Flanker is the NATO reporting name for the Su-27 and derivatives. The PAK FA is a whole new design and will get its own NATO reporting name.
>>27932652
Um, the PAK-FA is a SU-27 derivative....
>>27932652
>The PAK FA is a whole new design and will get its own NATO reporting name.
"Flanker-I"
>>27932667
ikr why do these airforces pretend to be making new aircraft
we all know the f22 was an advanced f15 variant, f35 is based on the f16, etc.
>>27932729
>we all know the f22 was an advanced f15 variant, f35 is based on the f16, etc.
Filling the same role doesn't mean they were based on each other. The Su-25 and the A-10 are designed to do the same thing, but otherwise they have nothing in common that can't be explained by convergent design.
>>27926879
Well I guess it's better for the russians to sell them to the chinese instead of the chinese just copying it later on.
>>27930518
>I literally know nothing about air combat
>or the history of it
>and yet I just posted in an aviation thread....
>>27930950
It also picked it for the possibility of a naval variant.
I don't get how air maneuverability = capable of dodging numerous missiles from numerous aircraft.
>>27932949
>I don't get ecm, stealth, roe, iff, the actual real life distances of recent air kills dating back to 1999, and I also dont understand acm, or the history of air combat in general
>>27932804
atf was an air force program, navalization was never a factor
>>27930346>>27932569
Well there is a point where that type of high alpha maneuvering is useful, but the way modern air combat is fought means that it should never get to that point.
>>27933048
Jesus Google it tard, yes there was, the NATF
>>27933060
Even the guy who invented the maneuver acknowledges it has no place in combat. And to perform it requires disengaging the aoa limiter, which can only be safely done at an already slow spees, with positive trim already applied, because it is extremely dangerous and has a tendency to tranverse the aircraft into a forward snap roll. And even after safely disengaging the limiter, the pilot has to be mindful at all times, lest he accidentally snap rolls backwards. Many pilots have died at Russian air shows, as you know. Now you know the cause.
>>27933078
the natf had nothing to do with the atf idiot. by the time the navy realized they couldn't afford a 5th gen f14 replacement, the atf requirements were finalized and neither the f22 or f23 could be adapted to a naval role. the navy's requirements had no bearing on the atf's selection
>reading comprehension
>(You)
>>27927665
>China now have fighter which is can wreck both F-35 and F-22
Care to test that theory?
>>27930910
Fun fact, Russia had much better WVR missile back then too. The Archer. They had helmet targeting back then already.
But it's true that they fell behind after 90's. Right now they are horribly behind.
>>27932515
Mig-29 is good, but is really suffers from horrible range.
>>27926879
> an upgrade of an aircraft they already have
Pic extremely related.
The 117s is not good enough for a 5th gen fighter. It's pointless copying the engine now when the J-20 has been flying with AL-31s all this time.
>>27930910
>losing energy by purposefully stalling your aircraft
>good for anything other than nose pointing.
El oh el senpai
>>27932801
>literallyhada1to3lossratiotoSabres.jpeg
Fixed that for you anon
>literally not knowing what kind of MiG that is
Didn't Turkish F4s beat Chinese Su-27s in a combat simulation back in 2010? The F16 to Su27 simulation was even more disastrous. Su 27 is realistically in the same league as the F4 phantom or Mirage V. Russians are only now catching up to American 4th gen aircraft.
>>27927665
>dat sexy af back end..
LEWD
E
W
D
>>27932729
Because the PAKF-FA and SU-35 share a common airframe, engines and avionics. The superhornet has less in common with the classic f/a-18 than that.
>>27934510
>Because the PAKF-FA and SU-35 share a common airframe
Prove it
>inb4 a drawing lines between engines like it means something
![1445181374380[1].webm](https://i.imgur.com/SAxUWc0.jpg "1445181374380[1].webm")
>>27934370
and then poo in loo su30s raped american f15s in training exercises
f22s are so shitty they get raped by frogs on the daily
pretty pathetic imho family
>>27934564
>never actually got a gun solution
kek
>>27934590
>literally on target for 10secs straight
get your eyes checked m8
>>27934610
lrn2HUD
>>27934564
this is me taking the bait
>>27934628
the typhoon does in fact get a radar lock on it, but.that's irrelevant as funnel/boresight exist for a reason, and the euro was out maneuvering the 22
>>27934564
I'm not well versed in Rafale HUD shit (assuming this is Rafale HUD), but I think I only see a fleeting snap shot taken that may or may not have hit anything. I do see a radar lock which isn't surprising at that range, and perhaps a SHPI? Trying to decipher symbology
>>27935032
>>27934628
You see a radar lock that was broken and regained during the course of maneuver. There was a guns snap shot taken around the 46 second mark of the webm. In the beginning the Typhoon is pulling for the shot, gets too nose high and goes ballistic, lets the nose fall down, gains airspeed back, gets in a downhill spiral basically, trying for another lock and a gun shot. The solid line is the equivalent to a gun funnel in USA fighters and he is chasing it all over the place. Once the lock comes back on you can see the gun pipper pass over the area of the F-22 around the 46 second mark. Porbably in LAR for a IR missile the whole time too.
BUT who knows how this BFM engagement started. Maybe the F-22 started out defensive. Maybe not.
>>27926894
Judging by their past experiences of copying, it will take about 10 years to reverse engineering
>>27934533
Prove it isn't. When has sukhoi developed a new airframe?
>>27930508
Where have you been for the past decade?
>>27935063
Regardless of a gun snapshot or no, he had a good lock for a heater for several seconds, which is more than good enough with modern shit that can launch 90 degrees of boresight.
Which is exactly why fighter pilots train like this, to git gud.
>>27935063
unf
Wait did China just admit they can't get their domestic aviation industry up?
What happened to all those tech they hacked
>>27935917
>can't get their aviation industry up
>just announced that they throw in the world's lowest cost jet liners in the market last week
>Su-37 will never be mass produced
I know the 35 is already maneuverable enough, but thrust vectoring and those canards are just too sexy.
>>27933855
It's actually very useful if you have somebody on your ass.
>>27936301
No it isn't.
There's a video of a guy talking about red flag, describes the only opportunity aircraft like the F16/F15 have to engage an F22 is if the pilot gets antsy and engages thrust vectoring. They could then gain altitude and dive straight on the thing and kill it. Which is why F22 pilots learned to never ever do it.
It's even worse for Russian Su-27+++s, apparently they're so large its even easier due to the drag it generates and how much of a static target they become.
You kids don't seem to understand what the fuck thrust vectoring does, or how it affects an aircraft.
>>27936329
Cobra is very situational.
Yes, if you waste your speed like a retard at a random moment it'll get you killed.
Maneuvers like Cobra are used when enemy is very close and behind you. Sudden loss of speed makes them pass you and suddenly you are on their ass.
>>27936510
>Maneuvers like Cobra are used when enemy is very close and behind you.
They're not.
They're literally never used outside of airshows.
>Sudden loss of speed makes them pass you and suddenly you are on their ass.
Fuck no
>>27927044
They still can't produce even a decent copycat of AL-31. Copying AL-41 is way beyond their range of possibilities.
>>27936510
>Maneuvers like Cobra are used
Literally never. It's not an acm tactic and has no place in combat. Even airshow craft that perform have to be specially prept for it.
See
>>27933124
>>27936681
>>27936994
Why are you guys acting like if thrust vectoring was only useful for cobra?
Cobra just shows what these planes are capable of. The point is how agile they are in real combat.
>>27930508
I have confidence in my government that they were not retarded enough to store important documents on a computer with internet access.
>>27937017
I didn't even mention it first. I specifically said that its awful for trying to get someone off your tail, because it gets F-22s shot dead.
Its only useful in combat for a nose-pointing manouver, as long as you're in a position to accept losing a lot of energy and potentially becoming a target for anyone thats engaging you.
HOBS shooting kind of makes it irrelevant.
>>27937017
Thrust vectoring is for.super cruising and recovering from stalls quicker and safer.
A non TVC aircraft can still outmaneuver any TVC plane by using basic acm tactics and sustaining energy.
Stalling and tail sliding around are not combat tactics and never will be.
Read real pilot accounts, learn about real acm, fly in a real sim. And drop your shit Ace Combat fantasies like yesterdays news, they have no place here or in the real world
>>27937034
>I have confidence in my government that they were not retarded enough to store important documents on a computer with internet access.
Wew lad
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/23/us-government-hack-stole-fingerprints
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/us/office-of-personnel-management-hackers-got-data-of-millions.html?_r=0
The only combat potential for the cobra is a situation where the enemy is close on your tail and intends to use guns. It's not so much the sudden loss of speed but the fact that the flanker appears to be pulling a very high aoa maneuver, so the chasing pilot pulls back on the stick in anticipation but finds he has overshot the flanker.
It's a very specific combat situation that assumes your opponent has no aim-9s left on their rails. It's also a bad situation to be in because you let the enemy get behind you in the first place. Very limited practical usefulness, but it is a cool trick.
>>27937080
>It's a very specific combat situation
Is it really
so specific that its literally never happened, nor practiced?
>>27930910
>>soviets counter with Su-27, MiG-29 with super-maneuverability
Su-27, MiG-29 don't have super-maneuverability, combat pilots limited to around 26 degrees AOA. Only planes with super-maneuverability allowed to combat pilots are F-18E/F and F-22.
>>27936510
>Maneuvers like Cobra are used when enemy is very close and behind you. Sudden loss of speed makes them pass you and suddenly you are on their ass.
Scissors or high g barrel roll are better defensive maneuvers, they combine speed loss with lateral movement making plane difficult target during deceleration unlike Cobra.
>>27937064
Vectoring also improves your maneuverability. It's not only useful for weird situational tricks.
>>27937091
>Su-27, MiG-29 don't have super-maneuverability
>In 1983 the Russian Mikoyan MiG-29 and in 1996 the Sukhoi Su-27 were deployed with this capability, which has since become a standard in their 4th and 5th generation aircraft.
Try again.
>>27936510
>Sudden loss of speed makes them slightly pull the nose up and put 50 rounds of 20x102 straight through your cockpit.
Anon. Ace Combat is not a good representation of dogfighting.
>>27937117
>Vectoring also improves your maneuverability.
Actually vectoring slightly reduces maneuverability as it points trust vector in opposite direction from lift.
>>27937121
>Try again.
Read flight manual.
>>27937130
A million times this. "Duh but duh Cobra in combat" don't fucking real. There's a reason the AOA limiter isn't on the flight controls and has a cover over it.
>>27937125
Su-35 is capable of 100 degree angle of attack.
F-22 of 70 degree AOA.
Planes without vectoring don't even reach 30 degree.
>>27937124
This. If for some reason you REALLY did need to use the Cobra, it'd be for nose pointing for a snapshot. Using it in the supposed 'enemy on my tail, quick, better bleed ALL of my energy right now' would only result in a kill and at best a mid air collision.
>>27937148
Cool sources you've got there.
Meanwhile we've already seen the F-35 show off 60 degrees in released videos.
>>27937153
F-35 can do 50 degrees. And because of their next gen avionics.
>>27930508
Actually what they did was spread USB drives around the pentagon parking lot hoping that someone would pick one up, stick it into a connected computer inside, take it home and then use it from home which is exactly what happened. They only managed to get the unclassified stuff on it that hadn't really been released as the real design stuff is at Lockheed on their own network. As a guy in the computer forensics field, it's actually really interesting to see just all you can do with simple social engineering and playing on people's stupidity and curiosity.
>>27931339
>Russia just copies whatever the pentagon is doing
Lord when I die please send me to heave, I have already been to the debts of hell
>>27937130
Post the particular page or fuck off.
>>27937282
>durr post the page
Not him but fucking look in the cockpit you dimwit. >>27937146
>>27937178
You mean just like the F-18 could in the 1980's?
>>27937655
>No page
So fuck off then.
>>27938252
Aw. Is the drunk slav angry he doesn't even understand how AoA limiters work on combat aircraft?
Top kek,
>>27938340
I guess he really does think ACM is some real anime shit. Neon colored cutscene lines flowing in the background while the super cool Russian pilot whips his hand off the throttle and smashes the AOA limiter, cover included, and then the aircraft starts turning on a dime Macross Zero style or whatever the meme is.
>>27938340
>>27938677
>Still no page
Poor mad little things.
>>27938988
>he wants a "page" but he can't figure out what a "limiter" means
>>27939355
>He implies implications but he still didn't post the page
>>27939646
So let me get this straight.
He knows so much about Russian aviation that he literally needs some girl on the Internet to show him the flight manual in order to learn that turning off the AoA limiter is a flight emergency option ("fuck, my FCS died") only.
And he wants everyone in this thread to think he really knows a lot about Russian aviation.
>>27939927
So let me get this straight, he still didn't post the page.
>>27939979
He knows everything about Russian aviation but needs some dumb bitch from the Internet to tell him that the switch in the cockpit that ISN'T located on the primary flight controls and also has a big fat warning cover over it isn't supposed to be used in combat.
Do you know why I'm not just grabbing "the page! the page!"
Because you've been flying off with the goalposts at the speed of the Russian memetorpedo in fully two threads now.
:)
If you can't accept basic reality in the first place I'm not gonna be assed to let it go further vatnik.
>>27937957
The experimental one with vectoring. Yes.
>>27940021
He knows everything about Russian aviation, but he still didn't post the page.
This reminds me of the Mirage 2000 vs F-16 crap.
F-16 has better climb and better acceleration.
Mirage 2000 turns better.
Greeks put the two against each other for years and Mirage won almost every time.
Russian planes were just as good as NATO planes in the 90's. They were worse at BVR but better at WVR. They fell behind when Soviet Union fell apart.
>>27940093
Nah fuck it you "win".
Everybody else knows you didn't, but you can have it. Have fun.
"I won't move the goalposts again senpai!" would've got you the flight manual desu but you can just go badger someone more mad and less amused than I am.
Or, I don't know, look for yourself. Or maybe the fact that you don't has to do with the fact that you're not even actually a slav but instead a self-hating American slavaboo who thinks Flankers and their variants are literal embodiments of God come down to mankind, and due to being an American slavaboo, wouldn't actually understand the flight manual in the first place.
Maybe. Could just be intellectual dishonesty. <3
>>27940168
>"to be honest" wordfilters to "desu"
ahahaha yes <3
>>27940040
No, dumbass. The F-18 is well known for having god-tier AoA. It's the greatest advantage it has over the F-16. The F-35 has an only marginally better AoA envelope, which puts it beyond god tier.
>>27940327
>NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, used an F-18 Hornet fighter aircraft as its High Angle-of-Attack (Alpha) Research Vehicle (HARV) in a three-phased flight research project lasting from April 1987 until September 1996. The aircraft completed 385 research flights and demonstrated stabilized flight at angles of attack between 65 and 70 degrees using thrust vectoring vanes
>using thrust vectoring vanes
>>27940327
>In terms of high angle of attack (AOA) performance, Flynn says the F-35 is better than the Boeing F/A-18E/F, even though the Super Hornet is capable of reaching higher angles than the JSF's limit of 50°. "We are better than any airplane out there," says Flynn, a veteran Canadian Forces CF-18 Hornet pilot who has also flown thrust-vectored prototype variants of the F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet at NASA. "You can go to higher degrees of angle-of-attack in the F/A-18, the flight control system will not limit you, but that's not necessarily controlled flight." In the F/A-18, Flynn says that past 50° there is a lot of very violent buffeting.
>"You maneuver the airplane much like an F-22 or a lot like I maneuvered the prototype F-16 20 years ago with thrust vectoring," Flynn says. "You maneuver the airplane back and forth with amazing controllability at the highest degree of angle-of-attack, and that is not the case with the only other Western airplane that can go to high AOA, the F/A-18." The one other exception is the Raptor, which Flynn does acknowledge as having better high AOA performance than the F-35 due to its thrust vectoring capability. The Typhoon, by comparison, has a 25° AOA limit. In the F-35, Lockheed made the decision to limit the AOA to 50°, but test pilots have flown the aircraft well past that.
>>27937148
>Muh AoA
Once you exceed the critical AoA (~30 degrees for slat-equipped fighters and ~20 degrees for those without), there is literally nothing to be gained except airshow wow-factor. Lift has already peaked and you're just hemorrhaging energy for no reason with these post-stall maneuvers.
>>27937148
F-22 has demonstrated controllability during tailslides (180 degrees AoA) thanks to TVC. Still doesn't mean shit for actual combat capability, though.
>>27940379
see >>27940431
Even stock the F-18 had equal or better controlled flight AoA to the F-35. Your 65-70 degrees is way beyond this benchmark.
>>27940437
>Lift has already peaked and you're just hemorrhaging energy for no reason with these post-stall maneuvers.
Sure. Except for snap nose pointings against more maneuverable fighters in the proper window. Which is literally how the F-18 won most of the matches against the F-16 with equally matched pilots.
>>27940442
That guy is not talking about stock F-18. He's talking about the NASA one with vectoring.
>>27940437
Better AOA is why Mirage 2000 won 90% of duels with F-16.
>>27940168
I "win", yet he still didn't post the page.
>>27935063
>dat gif
fukken saved
have a f22 webbum
>>27936097
jesus christ why
>>27927665
i thought this meme died already.
but with the Chinese economy in the shitter you guys really are scraping the bottom of the iron rice bowl
>>27933873
>MiG-17
>lost 3 to 1 against Sabres
wrong fighter
>>27937121
speaking of cobras
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M1P0Zk3cJQ
>>27942456
I hate to be a doubter, but they aren't cleared for those kinds of manuevers yet.
Even the test planes haven't been cleared for that.
I might be wrong as of June 2015 though.
>>27942063
I think it was bait.
>chinese economy in the shitter
U wot m8. That meme needs to die as well. Going from 7.8% growth in 2012 to 7% growth in 2015, is a slowdown, but my by no means is the economy in the shitter.
>>27937080
>The only combat potential for the cobra is a situation where the enemy is close on your tail and intends to use guns
Any situation where the pursuing fighter finds his bandit suddenly slowing down/stalling will merely pull up into the vertical.
You see, ignorant anon, air space is made up of 3 dimensions, and while an idiot like yourself thinks that an aircraft merely flies along on a horizontal line, either flying fast, or stalling. An aircraft pulling up into the vertical will have just as little horizontal forward motion, as the aircraft tail sliding around.
And now the pursing aircraft not only finds his idiotic opponent at a loss of energy, but now at an altitude disadvantage as well.
Performing a cobra with a bandit on your tail would be the equivalent of a fish purposely biting into a fishing hook, in some weird way to try and out outsmart the angler.
an 'easy catch' is the only outcome of that.
>>27937191
> playing on people's stupidity
Forget playing on it or using any social engineering.
The biggest leaks I dealt with in my service (not US) were due to people being stupied:
> Several PC's fell out, yes- fell out, out of the truck that was transporting them. 2 were found by civis (that saw the military markings and called the police) while an indication showed the last one found it's way into the black market.
> Some operations officer wanted to show off an to operation to some generals, so he made 20 CD copies of the escort UAV recording- and lost them all. At least one made it into the wrong hands.
> An officer took some TS documents home to keep studying them. On the way there, he stopped to buy some coffee and when he came back- the car, with the documents inside, was no longer there.
>>27935369
>>27937034
>>27930508
No. They only manged to get access to non-classified, or few confidential at most, files. It's not good that they got any access (unless it was a "black" computer which has less secured internet connection and is expected to be attacked), but the reasons are known and it's always a matter of time until stuff like that happens.
>>27942456
Going up a bit and sort of stopping.
Kids these days...
>>27926879
It is good that this deal is going through because it increases the amount of beauty in the world; surely one of the most gorgeous looking planes in aviation history (EVAH!!).
>>27937191
>Actually what they did was spread USB drives around the pentagon parking lot hoping that someone would pick one up, stick it into a connected computer inside, take it home and then use it from home which is exactly what happened.
MOTHER FUCKING BOOMERS
>>27935384
I think he was too close for missiles. At that range the missile would have a very hard time hitting - he had maybe a chance at 0:06 but after that it's unlikely.
But on the webm he gets at least twice a good opportunity to land a 1-second burst from the gun, which is more than enough to blow up any fighter jet.
>>27948095
