Hey /k/, how would you improve the F-22?
Waifu paintjob, obviously!
>>29700696
What is the purpose of this image?
>>29700696
F-22 is already small compared to other planes
Ways to improve:
>Add the 21 century technology
That's it
>>29700710
?
Give it an F-22C upgrade with updated avionics. As cool as it is it's very much an 80s-90s design and it shows.
Single engine
Dump the vertical tails
Increased payload
Spend money researching small hit to kill air breathing missiles.
2 person crew
>>29700696
Short Term:
>AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System,
>AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda
>Northrop Grumman AN/ASQ-242
>AN/APG-63(V)3 AESA Radar
>Helmet Mounted Display
>Remove the gun
Long Term:
>Move to a tailless design like the X-44 Manta
>Lasers that automatically destroy incoming missiles
>Variable Bypass Engines
>Swing-Wing Carrier Version
>New Phoenix Missile
>>29701441
This isn't fucking Ace Combat (yet)
>>29701192
>Single engine
>2 person crew
>>29701590
I forgot Americans needed an extra engine per extra crew member
>>29701192
>lets just make everything better
>not factoring in any of the penalties
This is just unrealistic.
Also, we already have a single engine stealth strike fighter about to hit service
>>29701603
See, you're trying to be funny, but you're just demonstrating that you didn't understand what he was saying.
>>29701441
and all for the low flight hour cost of only $300,000/hr
electronics/avionics/sensor upgrade package to put it update with the F-35.
that trick missile rack like the J-20 has. so the missiles can be outside the bay on the rack, but the door to the bay is closed. to help keep RCS down.
AESA radars that can look any direction and can fry missiles and electronics.
bump up engine power with out losing range.
>>29700710
fucking kill yourself
>>29700696
do a proper F-16 version with stealth tech instead of a lockheed shitstorm
![istock_000002762586xsmall-diverse-group-of-women-laughing1-1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CAocXX8.jpg "istock_000002762586xsmall-diverse-group-of-women-laughing1-1[1].jpg")
>>29701752
>do a proper F-16 version with stealth tech instead of a lockheed shitstorm
>Doesn't know Lockmart now owns General dynamics and produces all new F-16s
>>29701689
No point to have 2 engines, the only reason for it is high speeds, which is pointless
>>29700696
>improve
I'd trash the whole damned thing, and work on building a multi-role drone instead.
>>29701441
>>Remove the gun
>>Swing-Wing Carrier Version
>>New Phoenix Missile
>>29701192
>make it heavier
>make it heavier again
>remove 50% of the thrust
>>29701843
Supersonic is just a meme
>>29701880
flak at low alt radar derps are set subsonic leads, they cant aim at supersonics
>>29701817
>m-muh gun
Dogfighting is dead, get over it.
>>29701893
who is using AAA to shoot at your fighters?
I've read that the F-22's stealth coating is prone to wear and needs constant maintenance and repair. Replacing that coating with one that requires less maintenance could reduce cost/flight hour.
A IRST/DAS designed to allow the F-22 to keep the AIM-9s it carries inside the weapons bay prior to launch would be helpful too.
>>29701808
>no point to 2 engines
>it's useless
Use your brain.
1. Redundancy
2. Survivablility
3. Power, since the F-22 is heavy
Besides, when used for an aircraft interception role, the ability to crank the power and haul ass is vital
>>29702161
That's right, it's basically a paint that requires touch-up and maintenance. I'm pretty sure they're already planning to redo the fleet with F-35 style hard-baked skin coating that basically makes the RAM part of the skin.
>>29702239
Worse than that, anon.
Some of it is patched with a kind of putty-like substance that solidifies over areas that need to be opened for maintenance. That shit needs to be broken / cleaned off and reapplied every time you open the thing up.
>>29702209
Having two engines in a modern aircraft actually makes you less survivable. Just an FYI.
>>29702239
>>29702161
f-117 RAM is sheets of urethane. When they need to repair it. They just peel off the around the damage area and cut a new sheet to fit and glue it on.
>>29702311
How does having two engines make you less survivable?
>>29702424
Almost all engine failures result in both engines failing.
Almost all engine failures are now a result of human error in maintenance, meaning two engines literally doubles this chance
>>29702435
Dare I say.... source?
>>29702435
>what are maintenance procedures and redundancies
Also, if one engine goes, that absolutely does not mean the other engine will fail. The chance of a double engine failure is much lower than a single engine failure. If you have one engine, it has the same probability of failing, and if it does fail you're completely deadstick.
>>29701903
Yeah, Vietnam sure showed us that with the Phantoms
>>29702517
>Navy never had guns on Phantoms
>Consistently had drastically superior K:D ratios than the Air Force
>>29702517
You're right, it did.
>>29702472
>what are maintenance procedures and redundancies
Things that get fucked up?
Take a look at aircraft loss rates due to engine failure. You won't see a significant difference between F-16s and F-15Es, even though they both use F110s.
>>29702642
Yes, humans make errors. But when aircraft maintenance is performed, it involves a lot of double checking and the work gets signed off stating that it was done correctly. Its pretty rare that a maintenance worker's negligence is the cause of an engine failure.
So you're seriously saying that having a single engine is more reliable than having two engines? Also, source me up on those figures, cause I can't find anything on google.
>>29700696
I would give it an increased payload and a laser defense system to shoot down any missiles fired at it and I'd rename it the King Raptor.
>>29700710
I agree.
>>29702545
It's amazing how many gun kills the thud achieved against MIG-17s.
Remove thrust Vectoring.
Modifications to allow easy removal and installation of Major components like building blocks to increase reliability and keep the aircraft in the air longer over the course of 24 hours to increase effectiveness.
2 person Crew
>>29703033
>Remove thrust Vectoring.
literally why
>>29702542
Must be why they then demanded a gun on the next-generation fighter then hey?
Guess they knew something you didn't: the number of kills they'd have gotten if they'd had a gun in the plane.
>>29700696
Give it the RAM, electronics and sensor suite of the F35.
remove Vtol
>>29700696
Remove left wing. Replace with a more expensive version (made of diamonds, maybe).
>>29702435
>Almost all engine failures result in both engines failing.
What? What the heck is going to cause both engines to fail simultaneously?
>Almost all engine failures are now a result of human error in maintenance, meaning two engines literally doubles this chance
I'm sorry, but what? So if someone does improper maintenance on one of the engines, the other engine is just as likely to fuck up at the exact same time?
>>29702642
>>Take a look at aircraft loss rates due to engine failure. You won't see a significant difference between F-16s and F-15Es, even though they both use F110s.
Yeah, the engine failure rate is the same. The F-15 has a backup engine, though, whereas the F-16 doesn't, so when an F-15 suffers an engine failure, it can still fly, while an F-16 becomes a giant lawn dart.
Or did you think the F-15 only counts engine failures if BOTH engines fail simultaneously?
>>29703115
honestly tho its just to appease the old fucks
srsly most air fights these days happen beyond line of sight
not to mention you wont be able to hit shit with a dinky 20mm with how fast shit happens
>>29703150
>Remove left wing
Gladly
Replace the M61 Vulcan cannon with a directed energy weapon.
Add an infrared search and track system, probably in a look down configuration.
Implement side mounted radar as originally intended.
Conformal fuel tanks or weapons bays similar to the F-15E.
Implement F-35 avionics and electronic warfare systems.
Use newer, more durable radar absorbent material coatings.
POSSIBLY cut thrust. The F-22s biggest weakness is short range, making fuel last longer may be worth the hit to cruising speed.
>>29703164
A fighter should have a gun, any argument against having a gun can also be made against making a fighter highly maneuverable.
better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
>>29703115
These days, having a gun on fighters is the same as giving an infantryman a pistol.
You have very limited ammunition in comparison to your main weapon, it's far less effective, and it only comes out when shit has hit the fan so hard, your children and your children's children wonder why they got specks of that brown/green/unholywtf on them. Yes, they would have gotten more kills with a gun on the F-4 in Vietnam, but not many. The only reason why it was even a big deal back then was due to how primitive missile tech was at the time. Now, they are reliable to the point that in a realistic exercise, any fighter below Gen 5 dies when the Raptor gets bored and says "Time to die." Which said non-Gen 5 fighters then proceed to do. The gap between Gen 4.5 and 5 is simply that huge. The only way that guns can become viable again, is if it's Gen 5 vs Gen 5, and even then, they'll have to use up their IR missiles first.
>>29700696
Cupholders, Gps, satellite radio.
>>29703277
>Now, they are reliable to the point that in a realistic exercise, any fighter below Gen 5 dies when the Raptor gets bored and says "Time to die." Which said non-Gen 5 fighters then proceed to do. The gap between Gen 4.5 and 5 is simply that huge.
This, right here, sounds like Tomclancian techno-wank of the worst sort.
>>29703155
>...the other engine is just as likely to fuck up at the exact same time?
Yes. Modern engines are much more reliable than earlier generations. When something does go, the vast majority of failures in modern engines are catastrophic failures which cause enough damage to put both out of action. Twice as many engines means twice as many opportunities for human error during maintenance and twice as many parts that can fail. Compare (as someone else said) falcons to eagles, for example.
>>29700696
>>29703164
>srsly most air fights these days happen beyond line of sight
This is the same kind of argumentation that spawned the whole 'we shouldn't equip infantry with guns any more because only 1 in x-thousand bullets actually hits something'. It misses the point entirely.
You may very well be right but 'most air fights these days' are not representative of a symmetrical warfare scenario which is precisely what a fighter aircraft is designed for.
>>29703155
Not that anon, but if one engine goes down in a fighter jet because someone messed up, it's probably going to be really bad. Modern engines are incredibly reliable, so if something does happen, it's going to be a nightmare. As for probability of engine failure, let's say the Pratt & Whitney F100 has a 1% chance of failing. If you got two of them in a fighter, you then have a 2% chance that Something goes wrong with the fighter's engines overall. And, that something is usually a death sentence for that engine and its BFF.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure you get more performance with two engines, but there's diminishing returns. Having two is best suited for a high performance fighter for that reason, and not a general work-horse.
>>29703373
Yeah, I had that reaction too.
If an F-15 pilot tells you that you die when the F-22 gets bored, you should take that into serious consideration. Plus, the actual training exercises showed that it's usually a curb-stomp battle as long as the Raptor isn't given a whole boat load of artificial handicaps to even the playing field. All the F-15s didn't even know the F-22 was around until there were missile locks on them, and they still couldn't find it. Take it or leave it man.
https://youtu.be/EQ7MwfcjCa0?t=91
>>29701909
The presumably developed opposing force for which these fighter designs act as a deterrent.
>>29703041
To troll retards like you.
>>29702777
>Its pretty rare that a maintenance worker's negligence is the cause of an engine failure.
Mmmno, there were like half a dozen last year alone
>>29703268
Reminder that the F-35's gun is built pretty much purely for air to ground, and they could've just used the M61 if they wanted it to have an effective air to air gun.
add another 20mm on the other wing in the same position, and have a pop-up stealthified missile rail between the engines.
>>29700696
By actually putting it to use.
>>29703656
Source me up senpai
>>29703656
>half dozen
>out of how many flights
>>29703449
>When something does go, the vast majority of failures in modern engines are catastrophic failures which cause enough damage to put both out of action. Twice as many engines means twice as many opportunities for human error during maintenance and twice as many parts that can fail. Compare (as someone else said) falcons to eagles, for example.
But if an engine goes down due to catastrophic failure, why would the other automatically shut down? If a part fails on one engine, why is the other engine part going to fail at the same time?
>>29703532
>> let's say the Pratt & Whitney F100 has a 1% chance of failing. If you got two of them in a fighter, you then have a 2% chance that Something goes wrong with the fighter's engines overall. And, that something is usually a death sentence for that engine and its BFF.
That's not how statistics work. If I have two engines, and each engine only has a 1% chance of failing, then the chances of both engines failing at the same time isn't 2%. 0.5%.
And if you're in a single engine craft when that 1% chance comes up, then you're fucked. if you're in a twin engine craft, then you still have one engine to get you where you need to go.
It's going to require more maintenance overall because you're servicing twice as many engines, but when a failure does happen, the chances of you being without ANY ENGINES at all and losing the entire craft is dramatically reduced.
So is having another engine worth saving the craft? In some cases- like if you're hauling people, ejecting isn't dramatically safer for the pilot, or your craft is really fucking expensive, then the answer is yes.
>>29703897
The F100 actually had serious, fatal flaws in the F-15 BECAUSE it's a twin-engine fighter that were fixed easily in the F-16.
>>29703656
>Mmmno, there were like half a dozen last year alone
And how many resulted in the loss of the craft/pilot in twin engine craft compared to single engine craft?
>>29702786
>We control the skies.
>>29703924
>The F100 actually had serious, fatal flaws in the F-15 BECAUSE it's a twin-engine fighter that were fixed easily in the F-16.
What were those fatal flaws caused by being a twin engine craft? And how many craft were lost due to simultaneous engine failures?
>>29701893
Are you retarded?
>>29703453
>don't you ever speak to me or my sons again
>>29703952
Yes, in fact. There was no space in the airframe to prevent the stall issue that a simple air splitter in the F-16 fixed.
>>29703897
Do you not understand how catastrophic failure of a fucking jet engine would damage the one RIGHT NEXT TO IT?
>>29703670
>F-35's gun is built pretty much purely for air to ground
this makes even less sense then if is was for dog fighting, I dare you to find me an instance where a relatively modern fighter (other than an A10) used its gun for strafing ground targets
>>29703874
Way to completely miss the point.
I'm not saying the failure rate is high, just that they're generall maintenance related, not pilot error or enemy action, and most of the crashes were 2 engine, if fixed wing. F-18 in Cambridge was the last one I remember.
>>29703938
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_%282010%E2%80%93present%29
>>29701441
>>New Phoenix Missile
Have you not seen the specs for the AMRAAM (AIM-120 D?) Anything bigger and the capacity of the existing fuselage will be cut in half. It would be nice to see a SCRAMJET Version of the AMRAAM.
>>29701441
>>Remove the gun
No. Its a critical component of the package.
>>29701441
>>AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System,
>>AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda
>>Northrop Grumman AN/ASQ-242
>>AN/APG-63(V)3 AESA Radar
>>Helmet Mounted Display
These may very well be good Idea's.
>>29701109
>2 person crew
1 Pilot is enough. Another crewman would cause additional extension to the nose.>>29701192
>Increased payload
Not gonna happen.
>>29701192
>Single engine
no. Your asking to lose super cruise functionality with that.
>>29701192
>Dump the vertical tails
Nope. A good portion of the maneuverability comes from these things.
>>29703532
>>29703897
Both are right both are wrong
ASSUMING ENGINE FAILURES ARE INDEPENDENT with 1% each, there is a 2% chance of a failure, but a .01% of a double failure
Also you have to remember adding a second engine increases acceleration, which in turn increases velocity and possible payload
Depends on what role it's supposed to actually be filling. AESA radars, enhanced BVR missile capability, and swapping the gun for a MARAUDER plasma cannon all seem like interesting additions.
Taking the basic airframe and upgrading the hell out of everything might work better, though. I'm thinking drop the horizontal tail, convert to a cranked delta wing, add canards for riding the supersonic shock front like the Valkyrie had, and see if there's a way to be supercruise-capable with an even bigger engine.
>>29703365
uh yeahhh.... See pic
Although a Cup Holder would be nice...
>>29703986
>Yes, in fact. There was no space in the airframe to prevent the stall issue that a simple air splitter in the F-16 fixed.
That feature was actually left out of the F-015 because it was felt that the extra engine made it superfluous.
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/f-15.htm
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/F-16/USAF/f_16_USAF_80s.htm
>>29704049
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_%282010%E2%80%93present%29
3 lost F-15s vs 14 lost F-16's.
>>29704094
underrated post
>>29704029
180/220 rounds with programmable burst round count and far more accurate aim assistance and targeting measure.
And you don't need 25mm Armor-Piercing Explosive rounds for air to air.
It's about being ultra precise and having the option.
>>29702239
I think they already did the F-35 skin for the F-22's, there was a things about it earlier.
>>29700696
By making it an F-35
>>29703985
kek
>>29704094
>Nope. A good portion of the maneuverability comes from these things.
I see you didn't take your physics lessons
Having no vertical tails gives it an insane maneuvability.
But the vertical tails exist for stabilization, because we still didn't got enough tech to stabilize an aircraft
>>29708245
-without vertical tails
>>29700696
mass produce them to cut costs and deploy in overwhelming numbers
>producing en masse will reduce the price
>deploying en masse will increase the the chance any individual plane survives
>>29703897
Imagine, if you will. A machine. A machine that, deep within it, houses enough heat and pressure to send several cars hurtling through the air, and, of course, uses all of this force to keep the even bigger machine it is mounted within from falling from the sky and dashing itself across the surface of the earth. Due to this tremendously important responsibility, it's made as reliable as humanly possible, with multiple fail-safe systems, redundancies and so forth. So. What would it take to actually make such a reliable machine fail? A nightmare. An absolute, utter nightmare where all the little mistakes maintenance makes over time along with wear-and-tear and combat stress obliterates this machine. A nightmare where this machine sharts its guts out, sending jet engine blades and fire out its ass while fuel is being spewed out the seams, seeping throughout the airframe. While, at the very same time the fighter jet's fire protection systems saw all this and went, "NOPE, NOPE, NOPE" before it became an hero. It's not that the other engine shuts down. Rather, it's consumed from the inside out in its entirety by this creeping horror.
This is why you and >>29704231 should not be looking for the probability of a double-failure. Instead, you both need to look for the probability of just one failure. One failure to bind them, one failure to doom them all.
Of course, that's all just the trade-off of having flat out superior performance.
>>29700771
Small compared to other planes in its weight class, but compared to an F-16 or F-35 it's huge.
>>29700696
>FASTEEERRRR!!!!!!
Mach or higher would show those commie faggots who the swinging dick of the world is!
>>29708245
>>29708254
>because we still didn't got enough tech to stabilize an aircraft
>-without vertical tails
How does pic related fly?
>>29709633
Super stealth technology that cloaks the vertical tails
>>29700696
building it would improve the hell out of it.
It's the age old question. How do you sink the Polish navy? Put it in the water.
>>29708245
Vertical tails is them being conservative in the design, remember these programs started decades ago
>>29704094
Super cruise, indeed all super sonic flight, is seriously overrated and significantly impacts your aircrafts range.
If you really need super sonic interception, then you fire a missile.
>>29702545
B52 Kek
>>29709768
Eh, the 22 and 35 are still stealthy on par with the B-2, no reason to pull a Boeing and try to make a fighter with massive design flaws when you can just improve on conventional design.
>>29706167
>making it an F-35
OP said IMPROVE the F-22, not "turn to utter shit"
>>29709791
Out there somewhere right now, in a retirement home, is the last enlisted combat ace bomber tail gunner.
>>29710788
>>29702545
> Because the USAF was the only branch of service to do air combat during Vietnam the
US air kills in Vietnam are follows
AIM-4 5
AIM-7 59
AIM-9 79
AIM-9 & Cannons 3
Cannons 50
Gunfire 2 ( door-guns of a UH-1 )
Maneuver 6
Zuni 1
Zuni & Cannons 1
.50 cal 3
http://myplace.frontier.com/~anneled/usvictor.html
What triggers me about that image is the last line that is highlighted. It is just wrong. Even if you rule out mixed kills the AIM-9 has 20 more kills to its credit then the AIM-7 during that war. PK of the AIM-7 of the era was only .066. The PK of the AIM-9 of the same era was .18. Also the AIM-7 has only 9 more kills to its credit then cannons. Four if you count mixed kills.
The take away from the Vietnam war was that the most important weapons for air to air was IR missiles, not radar-guided missiles.
>>29710830
>F-22: slightly over-time, withing visual distance of the budget, stealthy to UHF radars to a reasonable degree, production axed by the US.gov because "muh cold war is over" cuts
>F-35: massive schedule blow-out, enormous cost overruns, sticks out to UHF radars like a dog's balls, dropped by several nations that would have bought them because of the cost overruns, IOC was 2 years ago but the damn thing still isnt ready, weapon bay doors need to be opened every 10 minutes in fight to stop overheating, ... need I go on?
>>29702545
>all dem cannon kills
>>29710877
>Gunfire 2 ( door-guns of a UH-1 )
>Zuni 1
>Zuni & Cannons 1
...now those would be cool stories to hear told over a beer....
>>29700696
>Hey /k/, how would you improve the F-22?
Copy the J20 Super Raptor
>>29700696
This prototype is already miles ahead!
>>29710905
Here you go, Chang
>>29710901
Both of the door-gunners kills were on the same day ( 12-Jan-68) on the same CIA UH-1. I wonder if it was also on the same flight.
>>29710894
>absolutely nothing that is true: the post
>>29708946
But the thing is that a single engine does not result in a double failure EVERY SINGLE TIME. because not every single engine failure results in an exploding engine and not every exploding engine makes the one adjacent to it inoperable.
The figures prove it. Check the links provided, and you'll see that fewer F-15's are lost due to engine failures than F-16's and more F-15's recover from engine failures than do F-16's.
>>29700696
Make more.
>>29710981
Oh really?
So why is Congress seeing if the F-22 production line can be reopened, right now?
Here's a a 48-page report from the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation which casts serious doubts on whether the Marines' current version of the F-35, the Block 2B, is capable of entering combat on it own.
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/01/DOT%26E%202015%20F-35%20Annual%20Report.pdf
>"If in an opposed combat scenario, the F-35 Block 2B aircraft would need to avoid threat engagement and would require augmentation by other friendly forces."
https://warisboring.com/the-f-35-is-still-horribly-broken-16abd647cf7a#.fumj001rt
http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/
http://theweek.com/articles/605165/f35-still-horribly-broken
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/30/inside-the-ring-f-35-software-problems/?page=all
http://www.bidnessetc.com/66519-united-technologies-pratt-whitney-f35-engines-experience-problems/
More like:
>absolutely everything true about the F-35 that fanboys refuse to believe: the post
>>29711058
because they are idiots who have fallen for the f-35 sucks meme
These are also the same people who want wide open borders, mass immigration, and amnesty to illegals
>>29700710
>Tripfag
>weeboo
Stop asking yourself why nobody likes you. You have 2 reasons to kill yourself.
>>29711043
There are more f-16's than f-15's
negro
>>29711077
This
The F35 has become a pawn in the political game. Most information out there is tainted with politics.
>>29711058
>Literally zero credible articles linked
>References a congressional request for the Air Force to do a study they've already done and presented previously
>Implying Block 3F isn't the bare minimum deployed version
>>29711077
>the f-35 sucks meme
The F-35 itself is a meme aircraft.
The fact it is still not combat-ready TWO YEARS after IOC shows its a piece of over-hyped junk.
Don't link your sub-par aircraft with your commie social policy.
>The F-35 is not up to scratch.
>Borders exist for a reason.
>Mass Immigration is dumb.
>Amnesties encourage further lawbreaking.
These things are all facts.
>>29711112
The f-35 is the best plane in the air
It works today
It would beat the F-22 in air 2 air
And russian/china/whoever are scrambling for something that could be competitive
>>29711108
>I... don't like what you're saying!
>Therefore your articles are not credible!
>>29711130
>It works today
Except no, people who actually fly fighters for a living say it is not up to use in combat.
Flying=/=flying in combat
>It would beat the F-22 in air 2 air
Try trolling harder. F-22 is designed for air superiority, while the F-35 lost to the F-16 in exercises.
And just like you, the brass closed their eyes and covered their ears and denied that anything was wrong with the F-35.
>>29711112
>The fact it is still not combat-ready TWO YEARS after IOC shows its a piece of over-hyped junk.
>USMC IOC was just last July
>AF this fall
>Navy next year
Are you done being retarded?
>>29711112
>delayed program
>end result must be bad
>>29711151
They aren't credible because they're full of shit, genius.
>>29711151
?
The F-22 has no IRST and so the F-35 will see it first every time
Which means the F-22 will lose
Superior stealth, superior electronics, superior radar make the F-35 the overall superior aircraft
>>29711167
>The F-22 has no IRST and so the F-35 will see it first every time
Funny how every Russian jet from the Mig-29 onwards has had IRST, yet the USAF kept saying it wasn't a game-changer.
Oh well....
>>29711177
Yeah, but the F-35 doesn't have an IRST, it has the EO-DAS system, which makes IRST look like a toy.
>>29711167
>>29711187
>t. Lockheed-Martin
>>29711167
>>29711187
EOTS won't outrange the APG-77
>>29711205
>t. Hurrdurr
>>29711208
Which is why it has both the AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda EWO suite and the AN/APG-81 AESA radar.
>>29711208
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2q65qOl1tM
>>29711208
Against a stealth target?
>>29711177
Because russian jets are not stealth
So radar will spot them at 200 miles
>>29701441
>remove the gun
You do realize that the new wave of countermeasures, maneuverability, and stealth means that guns are more necessary than they've been since Korea, right?
>>29704029
Not him but...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy9VPTWyLh0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVJOOjUlGek
>ADVENT-style variable bypass ratio engine
>EOTS/DAS/IRST features from the F-35 but updated with the latest generation sensors
>A central processor that isn't from the mid 90s
>Modular/open architecture
>Cheek AESAs for expanded situational awareness
>Next-gen RAM for maintenance hours reduction
>Improved thermal management systems
>Improved cockpit displays
Maybe go ahead and make the delta-winged FB-22 variant to replace the Mudhen.
Add second gun, a TLS, an ADMM, and a burst missile.
Really though
>Update any old electronics systems
>Add in that fancy new sensor suite the F-35 apparently has
>Seriously try to develop the COFFIN system and integrate it into the aircraft
>Paint waifus on all aircraft, enemy will be too busy laughing to respond appropriately
>>29700696
make it cheaper
Make it stronger with all the fancy new composites, then make it unmanned.
>>29711464
Prepare to be CULTURED
>j-pop starts blasting from the skies
>>29700696
>install 'hot' laser
>install railcanon
>upgrade systems to accurately target both
>upgrade engines for increased thrust
>>29700696
Make more of them
>>29710808
Under rated post.
Put a GAU-8 in it
>>29701441
>Lasers that automatically destroy incoming missiles
This is the most important update any fighter could have. Whoever has this first will achieve near 100% domination over any airspace.
It really should be an arms race over this already.
Is there a specific reason why jets rarely use more than 2 engines? Aside from increased maintenance
>>29713525
Because more engines mean more weight.
It's more efficient to have 1 or 2 large engines than many smaller ones.
>>29713549
What if you do 3 large engines. Wouldn't they generate proportional thrust?
>>29701441
>swing-wing F-22
NO BONER NO
>>29713567
>>29713525
You only use more engines because you don't have a single big engine designed
Theres no advantage from having more engines
>>29702435
>riding in plane
>left engine has problem
>pilot says the left engine is experiencing problems but will make an emergency landing at the airport
>right engine works completely fine
>right engine suddenly explodes
>tfw if engine failure on a two engine plane results in both engines failing no matter what
>tfw dead
>>29700696
transform it into an F-15
On the point of two engines not actually being more reliable, the reason for this is that modern computer designed engines don't fucking fail as a result of design or production faults. They're seriously reliable. Almost all engine failures now are catastrophic KABOOM engine failures as a result of maintenance errors, in which case the aircraft is pretty much done for regardless.
>>29711438
Please? Can we? Please?
PLEEEEAASE?
>>29713640
>Theres no advantage from having more engines
whats redundancy?
>>29702545
fucking thuds man
>>29708245
>He doesn't know what yaw is
>InB4 "LOL B2"
>>29712358
This
>>29700696
>>29713822
Yawing is not something you do when it would actually matter to be manouverable, scrublord
>>29701738
Weren't they making a wing mounted missile pod for something like the c17(not sure which heavy it was, to be honest) that would link up with the IFDL on the 22 to remote fire?
Designed so that one 22 could sneak in, designate targets, and remotely fire them before the enemy even knew what was coming.
Don't even need to open the SWB doors.
>>29701441
>Swing-Wing
As sexy as they are there's a reason no aircraft design since the late 70s has had them.
>>29701454
X-02s are so A E S T H I C
>>29702542
Are you fucking autistic? The goods has guns on their Slav built Migs, and still killed Phantoms. Also, the gun was to be used if none of your sidewinders and none of your wingman's missiles hit their mark.
>>29703453
Yo why the fuck isn't the USAF funding this
>>29702435
(Citation needed)
>>29702545
Leaving out the navy makes this suspicious.
>>29715134
Weren't navy missiles better than air force missiles at the time?
>>29702517
I am glad vietnam ended over fuck...I was gonna say 30, but Im old. It ended over 40 years ago. Fuck. I sure am glad nothing has changed in 40 years. Sure fucking am glad we are using giant ass computers. Hey why dont you send me a page on your pager? Or call me from the landline.
technology moves forward. Missiles got reliable, the car got better.
fucking Vietnam missile meme.
>>29702545
needs a missiles fired column and guns on target attempted to make a valid conclusion
>>29712402
>should
I got something that will tickle you.
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2013/10/laser-missile-defense.html
http://defense-update.com/20140307_successful-excalibur-test-brings-darpa-closer-compact-high-energy-lasers.html
One year of progress.
>>29715177
No it doesn't, you don't need every stat to know the results.
>>29715211
Another year
http://aviationweek.com/technology/general-atomics-third-gen-electric-laser-weapon-now-ready
I know I'm late, but I'd remove the human element and give it a support drone constellation + a upper atmosphere solar dirigible launch base.
>>29715249
>a upper atmosphere solar dirigible launch base
And how the fuck is it going to dock with a slow moving dirigible in the upper atmosphere?
>>29715269
No dicking bro. It's not some eurofag blimp. There would be a quarter mile gantry. The fighter would land in the center. The drone swarm would live on the sides.
>>29702471
not the guy who originally posted it, but I recall reading that too. I want to say it was from a reliable source but I can't for the life remember where I read it.
>>29715361
I'm down. Worst case scenario, it gets hit, but you got escape pods and time to get off the fucker being up that high. even a plane falling from there with crew it in would have time to start, point down, air breath engines to a spin, and go, assuming everything failed for self start.
>>29715413
...you are assuming there are humans on board. If there were, there would be a minimal skeleton crew, and if you compartmentalize the gas bags they thing would be nigh on unbreakable. Modularization is the key to indestructibility IMO.
>>29715361
An F-22 can't fly slow enough at high altitude to dock with an airship.
>>29715473
It wouldn't dock. It would land in a gantry. For lCk of a better analogy, think the wings on the Battlestar Galactica. Fighters can refuel and (in the future) rearm from KC135 style remotely operated milch cows, but if they need repairs or teardowns, they burn hard up to +60K plus and land (not fucking dock) in the dirigible to be serviced by automata built to do ground crew work.
>>29713661
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ7MwfcjCa0
>>29715527
You realize how long it would have to be to handle the deceleration from that difference in speed?
1/4 mile is nowhere near enough.
>>29714967
>Are you fucking autistic?
No, I'm stating blatant fact. The Navy were consistently better in Vietnam without guns because:
A: Specialized pilots - Navy fighter pilots were the best pilots out of flight school and only flew fighters. The Air Force believed in "Universal Pilots" and thus could throw anybody in a Phantom.
B: Better training - The Navy never got interested in the AF's "Flying Safety" culture because carrier ops are inherently dangerous anyways. So they actually trained their crews in air to air tactics, and established the Fighter Weapons School specifically so that knowledge could be passed on. Something the Air Force didn't manage until post-war and with the Aggressor Squadrons, and even then mostly half-assing it until Red Flag was put into practice. Navy Pilots also were far better trained on releasing their missiles inside the optimum performance envelope, so they have far better Shot:Hit ratios as well.
C: Better tactics - The Air Force flew awkward, half-blind four-ship formations that were easy for MiGs to ambush, as opposed to the more standard two-ship Navy flights.
Get some fucking knowledge in you: https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf
>>29715156
Same missiles, better pilots using them.
>>29703649
>I was just pretending to be stupid
oh yes, that excuse.
>>29714967
The lack of a gun in the F-4 Phantom was a problem, but it is frequently blown out of portion. Can you highlight a specific instance where an F-4 Phantom was shot down where having a gun might have made a difference?
>>29715626
Bullshit. Carriers arrest mad thrust. Have you no faith in nerds and their modeling? If you cut the mass out of the plane for human occupancy and combine low pressure factors, I bet you can grab Rapiers out of the sky.
Maybe not. Regardless, the future of air superiority is quantity, not quality.
>>29710978
>>29710901
Wasn't even a real Huey, was a civilan Air America flight supporting a secret squiral TACAN site in Laos. Dude was leaning out the side with an AK and got two Bi-planes.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol52no2/iac/an-air-combat-first.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lima_Site_85
>>29715665
At high altitudes you have to be going MUCH faster to stay in the air.
>>29715663
Can you highlight an instance of the F4 going up against a level competitor?
>>29715681
Truff. Comes down to thrust/surface area. Imagine a big burn, forced stall, fall with style into a curved gantry with arresting gear.
>>29715705
>Imagine a big burn, forced stall, fall with style into a curved gantry with arresting gear.
>>29715739
...the same face when the Navy nerds told the Army Air Corpse they could land a bird on a boat.
>>29702545
Every time somebody posts this I feel a tingle of pride. I didn't make the infographic but I introduced it to /k/. That red line is my red line.
>>29715692
Define: "Level Competitor"
The F-4 was the best fighter in the world during its day.
>>29715763
Godsdamn look at the kills with the 20mm for the 104.
>>29715776
And thus my point is hammered by an other. I hate the F4, but I respect it. Bitch was a monster in its day.
How would you improve the A-10?
I can't think of anything.
>>29715809
Remove the human element. Literally every platform, apply that and you will improve it.
>>29715809
This >>29715834
The A-10's biggest problem is survivability.
>>29715842
Whaaaaaaaat? Nope.
>>29715842
>The A-10's biggest problem is survivability.
It just needs something to counter SAM's, its only weakness.
>>29700696
Add 1. Make it a F23.
>>29715796
> I hate the F4
Why the fuck would you do a stupid thing like that?
>>29715909
Any kind of missile, and for an aircraft, thats not really a "small" vulnerability.
>>29715861
whaaaaaat yes
>>29715988
My granddad second seated on them. He had nothing good to say about a plane that couldn't fly without engines, but he was old school.
Just my opinion friend.
>>29716005
Wait, we talking pilot or plane?
>>29715834
I would not trust an ai to be able to handle figuring out what on the ground to shoot vs what not to shoot
now autonomous air supperiority fighters? absolutely
A-10 drones? definitely
>>29708254
Because this is such a maneuverable aircraft...
>>29716019
>He had nothing good to say about a plane that couldn't fly without engines
So he was an OG Gliderfag then
>>29716035
AI handles the flying and dying, human in the ground does the decision making.
>>29716069
Panthers and forward until '72. Trained on the modded SBD. And just before you get Wikipedia strong, the S-3 had a ⅓ death attrition rate. One story: his classmate pancaked his bird after the groundfags installed his control surfaces backwards. An honest mistake. Killed a pilot, buried a bird, but honest nonetheless. McCain iced 40 ground crew in to pancakes. Life is a merrigoround.
But yeah, fuck the phantom.
>>29709779
>Fire a missle
Hmmmm ..... aircraft is flying away.... even with Mach 4 missile with flight range covered between the launch and moving target you still have to get the platform within 1/4 of the missles range to allow for a 60% hit probability. Let's fly slower than this enemy aircraft that's accelerating away frome an pop a shot off..... huurdurrr...
>>29716019
>He had nothing good to say about a plane that couldn't fly without engines
There are planes that can fly without engines?
>>29716128
If he's fucking off at supersonic in the other direction, you've won the engagement.
>>29716193
I know, I know, glide slope seems to be an archaic factor of flight. Look at the U2 or the Global Hawk. Falling with style is the difference between a trinket and a relic.
>>29716074
for the A 10 drone or f22 drone?
>>29716269
Every. Fucking. One. Why in fuck put a body in s body if you don't have to?
>>29716290
Because EWAR is a thing
>>29716300
So are hardened systems. Effective EWAR requires hardcore infrastructure. Shit is a double edged sword.
>>29716318
You're not going to be effectively communicating with drone aircraft at any useful distances in anything other than COIN.
>>29715763
Please see >>29710877
The infographic is wrong, and so is the last line.
>>29716238
But the F-4 can glide. Or at least I thought it could.
>>29716332
Fair point. But that is the point of NNs yes? In the moment decision making. War, globally speaking, is going to move so fast, calcified C&C is going to be obsolete within hours. The question is, who's shit will roll with no control?
>>29716356
It cannot. That is why it is historically notable; it is the first platform that couldn't fly without thrust.
>>29716290
because every single ai, no matter how smart, is running on 'if > then" programming. this makes it very difficult for them to shoot targets on the ground when the target might not be in a clean database. Are those friendlies or are they hostile? is that the first threat i should deal with or should i deal with a different one first? do i drop a bomb on the church with the insurgents in it? is this the right bulding to drop a bomb on at all?
These are some critical thinking questions best left up to people. Now with remote piloting like a drone, the a 10 is really good for the sort of role you describe. and if we go fully autonomous, the simplicity of air combat relative to that of the ground, makes it a battlespace ripe for autonomous combat vehicles. the problem is, even then, they're a bit dumb. If flare, for example, can fool a missile, why wouldn't they fool a plane when it tries to even use its guns? i image though that pure air superiority would be the best path for AI controlled planes. While pairing an AI fighter with a manned fighter for multi-role would be very effective as well
>>29716392
Horseshit.
It has a glide ratio of ~5.
>>29716521
You, sir, are a man that has a brain. Get into DCon theory.
>>29716552
Empty and undamaged, yes. Bitch needs dem burners to fly.
>>29716392
Source?
>>29716581
Yes, surprisingly it needs to produce thrust to fly rather than glide, much like every other powered aircraft on the planet, by definition.
>>29716594
In this drunk moment, I am relying on anecdotal evidence. Prove me wrong with sources, and I will debase myself with apologies. That bitch is a rock with sparrows tacked on.
>>29716621
*now
Once upon a time, planes flew.
>>29716560
what is DCon Theory. google's results aren't very straight to the point
>>29716639
*forever
>>29716650
Lol. Google is a fickle slur. Defense contracting is not a thing that can be nailed down.
>>29716656
The theory behind camber is amorphous.
>>29715235
>General Atomics
>>29716694
well if i've hit the nail on the head about this issue i will be very happy.
I'm working on speculative fiction, and this is my prediction:
>Air superiority fighters have become entirely autonomous due to the g forces they experience, the necessarily low reaction times, and the simplicity of their task. Recon and loiter missions are usually performed by autonomous/remote controlled drones. CAS missions are performed either by manned aircraft due to the complexity of ground situations, or by remotely operated drones when the situation allows it (too dangerous for pilots, long loiter times, etc). The domain of multi-role fighters is a completely different air game, however. This is accomplished with fighter craft pairs referred to as an element. One of the crafts is manned, while the other is an autonomous drone ‘wingman.’ The human pilot allows the element to think outside the box and respond quickly to new threats, while the autonomous drone of the element serves to protect the pilot and execute the orders it receives from him. Each drone has its own personality that is cultivated by the pilot. The drone and the pilot practice together. The pilot must learn to be comfortable relying on a drone, while the drone learns the specific quirks and commands unique to its pilot. The relationship in analogous to a combat dog and a handler. Each drone also comes equipped with a an avatar that the pilot can interact with. In addition to humanizing the drone, these avatars serve to display data about the drone’s condition in the form of Chernov faces. Because humans evolved to read other humans faces, many different sets of data can be displayed by the human features of a face, and processed simultaneously, rather than trying to read a series of numbers, bar graphs, and pie charts one at a time. In this way, a pilot can tell almost everything he needs to know about his drone from a single glance at its avatars face and the emotions it appears to display.
some general answers to this entire thread:
1) the F-22 is fine as a 5th gen air superiority jet. Any massive upgrades are not worth it. Just stick the HMCS in, maybe stick in a more powerful radar, maybe see if the EODAS can be shoved in somewhere, etc.
2) they aren't going to make an F-22 2.0. They are working on the F/A-XX project, which will replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. They are also working on the LRSB. The F-22, F-35, F/A-XX, and LRSB will combine to replace the F-15, F-16/F/A-18C, F/A-18E, and [misc strike planes] respectively in the 5th/6th generation of aircraft.
3) the F-35 is a great plane, it's currently operational in its first units, unit costs are now nice and low, bugs are being worked out, and it's well on its way to becoming an amazing workhorse multirole fighter like the F-16 was.
4) single engine is actually more reliable than twin engine with modern engines. Mechanical failures are pretty much gone nowadays, all errors are from human mistakes. Two engines means double the chances of human error. Combined with the fact that most engine failures are now catastrophic and cause the loss of the plane (regardless of if it has two engines or not), it means the F-16, for example, sees less losses from engine failures than the F-15 does (both with the F100 engine).
5) the F-4 phantom can glide. You're retarded if you think otherwise. Gliding is just slowly descending at a rate that provides enough airflow over the wings to still generate lift.
6) >muh gun for a2a vietnam meme
the air force didn't have the gun on the F-4, and they consistently had better kill ratios than the air force. The reason came down to realistic training for fighter pilots, and less cargo and bomber pilots shoehorned into fighter jets as "universal pilots". Low missile pk was mostly due to not launching within launch parameters, and yet missiles still accounted for most kills. Modern day, over 90% of kills are by radar missiles.
>>29716748
Shit son. All you need is a human element. Sounds fucking awesome.
>>29716759
Look at the wings, jackass.
Regardless, your read is sound IMO.
>>29716805
yes, it has wings. Like most jets.
The F-4 had a glide ratio of about 1000 feet of altitude for every mile (~5000 feet laterally). Certainly not good, about 5:1. A modern airliner is usually around 15:1 (so in a mile it only drops ~330 feet), but other fighter jets are usually also less than 10. The F-16 is apparently around 5:1 as well, as is the F/A-18.
it's not a matter of "can glide" or "can't glide". It's a matter of "how well can it glide". It's not a binary yes or no, it's a scale. So no, the F-4 isn't a great glider. Duh. But it CAN glide.
>>29716914
And I can support my senpai. Didn't win me custody.
>>29716748
Reminder that human tolerances are the least important element of determining a reusable aircraft's G-limits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stapp
>By riding the decelerator sled himself, in his 29th and last ride at Holloman, New Mexico, Stapp demonstrated that a human can withstand at least 46.2G. (In the forward position, with adequate harnessing.) This is the highest known acceleration voluntarily encountered by a human. Also, Stapp reached a speed of 632 miles per hour, which broke the land speed record. This made him the fastest man on Earth. Stapp believed that the tolerance of humans to acceleration had not yet been reached in tests. He believed it is much greater than thought possible.
>>29716748
>tfw no cutie drone wingman to fall for.
>>29716786
there is a human element, the one paired with his ai multirole wingman.
the autonomous purely air superiority one would simply be launched with mission parameters. go here. kill anything between this size and this size at this altitude that isn't friendly or some like that
>>29716945
yeah, the "why even have pilots, the planes are limited by the pilot withstanding G forces, without a pilot they could pull so much harder turns and shit" needs to die. It's bullshit. Turns out it's fucking hard to design a plane that can pull a 15G turn at 600 knots. Takes some serious structural strength to handle that. I mean seriously, you're designing something that needs to handle carrying 15x its own weight, essentially.
Besides, super-maneuverability of that sort is hardly worth the massive amount of research, development, testing, and money that would be required. Better to spend that on stealth, sensors, weapons, etc. which are much more important factors in modern air combat. I mean, how about spending that money on the program that's trying to miniaturize a2a missiles. Imagine having AMRAAM capability in something half the size. Instantly double the capacity of all planes. Launch two missiles for every one you could before, instantly improve pk by massive amounts. Or spend the money on having missiles that are much faster and maneuverable, or harder to spoof. Would be much more valuable than making a fighter that can turn at a couple more G's.
>>29717020
>>29716945
that was acceleration take straight back. taking acceleration downward is less and taking acceleration UPWARD is a very easy way to kill yourself. drones don't have this problem. in addition, drones don't become sensory overloaded. they don't need to integrate the information they are given, the simply have it. and with this is also a greatly increased reaction time. all result in a much, much tighter OODA loop
>>29717211
what was acceleration straight back???? I never mentioned a direction. The 15G I mentioned was assumed to be the same as the way fighters are subjected to most Gs, aka downwards from pulling back on the stick. Withstanding G's to the side or upwards isn't that necessary because fighters can just roll really quick and orient the plane such that the change in direction can be done by pulling back on the stick and downward G's. Right now, most fighters max out at around 10-11 G's. I was just saying that the amount of money spent improving that to say, 15 G's, wouldn't be worth it, pilot or not.
And a drone still needs to "integrate" the information and parse it in a manner that allows it to make a decision.
