airplane/ jet thread
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
airplane/ jet thread
So, we /k/ now?
>>29955818
>Needing to land on a carrier
>Can't even touch down in the middle of the ocean, rendezvous with a nukesub to refuel & rearm, and go sortie again
There are probably practical reasons why this program flopped, but still...
>>29955819
>You will never be the captain of a P-6M SeaMaster
>You will never even be Tom Cruise starring in a movie about being the captain of a P-6M SeaMaster
>>29955819
>in the middle of the ocean
Yeah ... no. Not unless you can find a patch of it that isn't 3m waves that will smash you to pieces before you're even landed.
>>29955821
Finding places to land isn't the problem. There is a hell of a lot more flat water in the world than there is flat land.
The real problem is that it takes a lot more to prepare an aircraft for a combat mission than just loading fuel and weapons, and it takes a LOT more than that to service one that is returning from such a mission and is expected to sortie again.
Having a submarine perform such maintenance on a seaplane in potentially hostile waters is a recipe for disaster, and is insanely complicated & expensive besides.
It's still a cool idea.
>>29955822
>it takes a lot more to prepare an aircraft for a combat mission than just loading fuel and weapons
Depends on who built the plane. Some of us build planes to land on stretches of country roads, with a turnaround time under fifteen minutes by a crew of nine people, only two of which are specifically trained for the tast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNlGgQ6VEbY
Was looking at craiglist for a used jet for my commuting/groceries but it looks like there is not a single used jet, so I must buy a new one. Does anybody knows an online store that sell cheap and reliable jets?
>>29955823
This is basically the same idea as being able to land on water and get re-armed by a submarine. It's fine until you have a minor mechanical failure. If you know much about the history of jet campaigns or have any experience in aviation, you'll understand that such failures are commonplace.
In any case, there is rather a large difference between a 1950's amphibious strategic jet bomber, and a 2011 reconnaissance fighter designed for countries with no money (Sweden, South Africa, etc). So your comparison is not exactly apt.
>>29955824
eBay
Aviationclassifieds
Aerotrader
Trade-a-plane
>>29955825
>It's fine until you have a minor mechanical failure.
Yeah, it's not as if an engine replacenemt on the Draken took under twenty minutes. The planes have always been designed from the ground up to actually be field maintainable. It's a design perspective that is only lacking in american fighters that have to be stripped down and repainted if they get rained on and therefore have no practical, strategical role what so ever. *cough*raptor*cough*
>hurrdurr no moniez
Weak 'murica troll is weak.
>>29955827
well look at how Brazil tried to cheap out with Sea Griphen.. yet turns out naval aviation is really hard and expensive, and the sea Griphen costs have tripled. Should have gone with proven F-18s.
>>29955827
The Israelis seem to make due, what with having the most active & successful airforce in the world. But you're right. Our airforce should really take more queues from Sweden & Hungary.
>>29955827
>It's a design perspective that is only lacking in American fighters
I think it's because people actually buy American fighters. We make a few hundred to a few thousand for ourselves as needed, move on to the next design as technology progresses, and spend the next three decades selling the older models - along with training, technical support, infrastructure, parts, accessories, update packages, etc
Cultural imperialism by way of planned obsolescence. The American defense industry is basically Apple's big, scary brother.
>>29955828
>Griphen
Are you the Tu-* troll? It's Gripen. I could accept a translated 'the Griffin' or 'the Gryphon', but Griphen is just plain confused.
>>29955827
You shouldn't talk about shit you know nothing about.
Top of the line fighter jets aren't meant to be "field mantainable", they're either flight worthy, or they're not. A "field mantainable" jet is a cheap, second rate option, that no first world country usually fields - the cheapest F-16 is not "field mantainable" at all.
The F-22 has an older RAM coating which deteriorates if constantly exposed to the elements, but guess what? No nation has yet matched the F-22, that's what you get when you plan 20+ years ahead of any other country in the world. The F-35 has none of these problems.
If you want to talk about jet fighters - sure, go ahead, but do it only if you know what the fuck you're talking about. Which means not saying "no pratical, strategical role" when talking about the planes built by a nation that ruled the skies for the past 60 years or so, and it's still 20 years ahead of the competition.
I mean, the fucking US NAVY has a better AIRFORCE than any other airforce in the world except the US one, and I think the US Marines Air Corps have a stronger airforce than any of the euro countries.
No, I'm not an amerilard, but I know my shit about jets and I got triggered.
>>29955830
That planned obsolescence must not be working very well I guess, since stuff like the F-15 is still the best proven fighter in the world, 40 years after its introduction, still kicking ass in training against much newer aircraft.
The "problem" with american planes is that they don't cut corners, because of the asinine amounts of money the USA can afford to spend on R&D for such machines. The USSR tried to match that, and they drove eastern europe to a complete economical collapse from which it still hasn't recovered - that says it all, really.
>>29955832
Please enlighten us as to the strategical role the F-22 has. Because is has none. It's put on AWACS protection duty for show, just to have _any_ official practical role. A role that any aircraft or even SAM site/ship could fill. And the whole stealth thing is pretty redundant when you're next to a giant fucking antenna _transmitting_ high power radar signals. The F-22 is a joke.
And if you want to compare the F-35 to the Gripen, Rafale, Su-35 or Eurofighter - knock yourself out.
>>29955833
>That planned obsolescence must not be working very well I guess, since stuff like the F-15 is still the best proven fighter in the world, 40 years after its introduction, still kicking ass in training against much newer aircraft.
It's a great airframe, but the characteristics that make it great don't matter as much to modern air combat trends as they did to previous decades.
>>29955834
>And if you want to compare the F-35 to the Gripen, Rafale, Su-35 or Eurofighter - knock yourself out.
The F-35 is a tech demo for a dozen different game-changing technologies. Like many tech demos, it is an expensive and buggy mess. But the technologies it represents are no less important for that.
>>29955835
>a dozen different game-changing technologies
About that...
So, to recap, the US _currently_ doesn't have anything that matches the four planes listed. It might have - at some unspecified time in the future. But not unless the F-35 suddenly evolves into something completely different, because none of the current models come close.
And it still does not address the issue of a design process that results in rampant maintainence costs and requirements that was the basis of the whole argument.
>>29955836
Your argument about what makes a combat aircraft "good" or "bad" is specious, but I can't stick around just now to continue the discussion - have obligations outside the internet today.
It's been fun/interesting!
>>29955834
>strategical role the F-22 has
it's capable of running in and out of enemy airspace without being detected, it's also a complete guarantee of air dominance. Plus entire countries are going bankrupt trying to match the effort and the closest is... japan, which is an US ally and just put out a flying stealth prototype.
I'd say it's pretty fucking strategically important?
Not going to compare shit, as far as multiroles go, the F-35 is in a whole other category: cheaper than the competition, better than the competition.
>>29955835
>but the characteristics that make it great don't matter as much to modern air combat trends as they did to previous decades.
I'll be the first one to say BVR isn't proven as a concept, but so far all has been fixated at BVR and the F-15 is still king at that.
>Like many tech demos, it is an expensive and buggy mess.
Cheaper than "proven planes" like the Rafale, and it's not buggier than other projects. Any advanced jet will take years to iron out.
>>29955836
four planes listed? What? You mean the Gripen, Rafale, EF and Su-35? F-22 has them beat in the air, the F-16 is a better cheap multirole, the super hornet covers naval options well.
The only noticeable option in that list is the Rafale, as its a good carrier based multirole. The F-35 has it beat in price and performance, but I decided to not compare it as it'd be unfair for the other planes.
>>29956479
>>29956682
>>29955838
>it's capable of running in and out of enemy airspace without being detected
Debatable. We have milimetre radars these days, so no, it's not. That's also why it's not tasked as a frontline air superiority fighter, even if it was sold to congress as such. It's tasked with last line of defense AWACS protection. Which makes:
>strategic importance
>outflying any competitors
... completely moot points. It's a showpiece. An expensive showpiece without practical utility or strategic importance.
> F-22 has them beat in the air, the F-16 is a better cheap multirole, the super hornet covers naval options well.
F-22? See above. Cost? Janes list cost per hour of flight of even the "cheap" F-16 at 150% the Gripen. The norwegian F-35 procurement now has a projected cost per operational flight hour eighteen times the cost of the Gripen. The Rafale is only four-five times as exensive, or eight in carrier operation.
Stop pulling numbers out your arse. Your "patriotism" is showing.
>>29955838
>without being detected
That worked out realy well for the U-2, SR-71, F-117 and all other stealth planes, didn't it? Except no, it didn't work at all when the opponent wasn't some dessert dweller with black market first gen Stingers.
There's a reason the rest of the world doesn't share this obsession with stealth. Yes, it's neat, but also not much more than that. Sensory integration and powerfull radars mean you're still relegated to low and fast and terrain masking to avoid detection, and ECM to avoid destruction. And when you have to have that anyway the stealth advantage is nice, but hardly all-important.
Stealth is also not an all or nothing concept, but a sliding scale. Many other modern fighters are stealthy. Some more than others. Priorities.
>>29956781
>circular reasoning and bad reading comprehension, the post!
Should probably go ahead and kill yourself, bud
>>29957998
>i have no argument so i will make random fallacy accusations and suggest suicide
You were only pretending to be retarded. Got it. We'll roll with that.
>>29958052
Says the man who calls the F-22 bad because he says it is.
Don't even have to engage you if you're taking that position; nobody but legitimate, clinically retarded people hold it
Nice reddit image macro by the way.
>>29958064
I don't. The AF says it's useless. If it wasn't, it'd have an assigned role other than AWACS support. You can pretend that's circular reasoning all you want, boy. It doesn't make it less true. The F-15 is the current front line air sup fighter. The F-35 might become one, one day. The F-22 isn't it, and there are no plans to make it either. There are many practical and technical reasons for this that everyone but you seem familiar with. You may google the plane if you dare to have your dreams shattered.
Oh, and Iran "has" pic related in the same sense as the F-22 is an active fighter. At least they had the sense to only make a plywood mock-up rather than a _flying_ mock-up that has to be repainted to the tune of several luxury cars worth of dough if it gets fucking rained on.
