Will the US ever build another true air superiority fighter?
No, I can tell you with absolute certainty that 6th gen will be entire space-based.
>>29967842
Yes. When Russia has the GDP and will to make their own.
>>29968457
So never.
The Raptor will be all that we need for at least the next five years. Does it need to be updated? Definitely. Will it stand on its own in its current form? Absolutely yes.
>>29967842
nope gonna be hunter killer drones from here on out.
>cheaper
>smaller
>disposable
>don't risk a pilot too death to death or interrogation every time one goes down.
I think it's awful, but I have no doubt it's the future.
>>29968575
Ridiculous considering how much human skill is involved with drones and how vulnerable they are to anything else in the sky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-XX_Program
>>29968490
This.
The US can gain air superiority anywhere they want with existing stock. No new development, no new production.
In the unlikely event some big war against another real force kicked off, they could resume F22 production and it'd kill everything in the sky wherever it was. Once other nation develop aircraft that threaten that model you won't see any new fighters, which is a long way off if what the Vatniks and Nipchongs have shown is is any indication.
As it stands the US could control the airspace over their current enemies with a guy in a hang glider strapped with 2 nuggets.
>>29968723
Theres no purpose to resume F-22 because the F-35 is better in air to air
>>29968585
>Ridiculous considering how much human skill is involved with drones and how vulnerable they are to anything else in the sky
That's is by design. our drones are designed as slow recon units with missiles niggerrigged on as an afterthought. just as we have multiple generations of jet fighters with increased capabilities, drones will follow the same path. and drones are only one or two generations in.
>replace a cockpit with a camera set and have it connect to a pilot with a vr headset on the ground.
>design a plane that can turn at what are currently deadly speeds for a human pilot.
>shed hundreds of pounds of weight in controls, instrumentation, and life support.
>without the pilot designs that are more fuel efficient and stealth capable become possible
The biggest road block right now is connection lag. but in all honesty I think we will eke out one more generation of jet fighters before connections are fast enough and secure enough for this too happen.
>>29968775
No. Stop this. Lightning is a strike fighter, not an air superiority platform. It can perform interim air superiority and interception roles, but it is not superior to Raptor in that field.
>>29968575
>cheaper
if you want it to do what an air superiority fighter does, you will be spending air superiority money. the myth of cheap drones is exactly that, a myth.
>smaller
you have miniture radars of the same power now? miniture engines? you want it to do what an air superiority fighter does, you have air superiority size.
>disposable
not fucking likely
>don't risk a pilot too death to death or interrogation every time one goes down.
happened before, will happen again.
>>29968837
There are currently plans to take F-16s and F-18s in storage and replace the cockpit with a drone package which will make them semiautonomous under the control of a "mother ship", which would be an AWACS, F-22 or F-35. These QF-16 and QF-18s would retain full weapon capabilities and radar, which would allow them to feed data to a stealth " mother ship" as it stayed back out of range with its own radar off.
>>29969630
they'd better. rule of cool dictates that thing must be built.
>>29968837
>That's is by design. our drones are designed as slow recon units with missiles niggerrigged on as an afterthought.
Because they can't do anything else.
>>29969786
>>>29968837 (You)
>>That's is by design. our drones are designed as slow recon units with missiles niggerrigged on as an afterthought.
>Because they can't do anything else.
Good point, that is exactly what the first planes fielded in war were. and as we all know they were never able to do anything else with them.
>>29968575
I believe this.
AI has gotten really good and I could see a drone where AI takes over for air combat but a drone pilot is in control otherwise.
>>29970074
You don't have any concept of how drones are used and why they're used like this.
>>29968837
>niggerrigged on as an afterthought
Man the history behind developing the first predators is pretty amazing.
>On the first demonstration flight, the engine failed. On landing, it stopped within two feet of the end of the runway.
>Total flight time was roughly 14 seconds.
>Technician ran out to turn off the battery, accidentally triggered the explosive charge that deploys the parachute.
>It gently falls around and covers him
>The parachute packer was away that day
>And so that was the end of that demonstration.
>The first camera ball was nigger rigged
>The second camera ball (with the first laser designator) was nigger rigged on in a couple of weeks then rushed out to service.
>The first hellfire launchers were literally standard quad rails cut in half and nigger rigged onto the wings
>Weren't sure that the wings could support the weight, or whether firing them would destroy the aircraft with the back-blast
>btw, had to figure out how to make hellfires work from much higher than their intended firing altitude
>It took them quite a few tries to get the firing accurate
also
>First satcom infrastructure was nigger rigged, using a 'borrowed' (effectively stolen) dish from another branch of the airforce (There was a LOT of interservice/interdepartmental dickery regarding the predator program).
They're much more refined nowadays though, especially the reaper.
>>29971089
so the first predators were basically 70% duct tape and zipties?
neat.
hopefully that one tripfag reaper can confirm
>>29969630
>Hornets without cockpits
Uncanny desu
![Screen_Shot_2014_05_10_at_9_18_03_AM[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/TUy8KmB.png "Screen_Shot_2014_05_10_at_9_18_03_AM[1].png")
>>29967842
The USAF Next Generation Air Dominance program is creating the F-22's successor. They're only up to conceptual development, but from talks about its expected duties and requirements, they're going to build something that resembles an interceptor, with less manoeuvrability, but a long range (something with probably a >1000NM combat radius), larger internal payload (at least 8 AMRAAMs), more stealth, better sensors and also the ability to supercruise more efficiently.
>>29968398
>ywn fly at 7900m/s burning enemy jets out of the sky with lasers
>ywn laugh at how many you got as you wait for your radiators to cool and your obit to bring you over the target area again
>ywn pull a crazy maneuver with your oms engines to avoid the ALTO missile.
why
even
live
>>29971264
>less maneuverability
GAAAAAAAAY
>>29971264
>raptor just barely been in service and pretty much never been used
>USAF already wants something new
you just can't make this shit up, man
>>29971305
That's how you remain dominant in fighter development, especially now that Russia and China are getting back in the game (or getting in the game for the first time).
Also, I forgot to mention, AFRL have directed energy programs which are intended to tie in with NGAD; if you've heard the news of putting solid state lasers on AC-130s, then in pods for fighters, etc, they're designed to get the Technology Readiness state for lasers high enough in time to be added to the NGAD program.
>>29971111
It was more a mix of using relatively advanced composite manufacturing processes, coupled with a whole lot of macgyvering going on.
The group responsible was part of Big Safari. They faced a lot of tight deadlines, thin budgeting and a fuckton of opposition and political dickery from people who thought the program was worthless, or should be under someone else's control etc...
It's really quite astounding that this program was very nearly shitcanned so many times. Particularly when you think about how it literally began the drone revolution and look where that's lead us today. There's fucking wearable 'wristwatch' camera drones for making videos of yourself doing shit.
>>29971305
First flight of the f-22 was 19 years ago, and while I don't doubt that nothing is going to come close to it for quite a while yet, one must be mindful that technology progresses very rapidly.
Note also that the USAF started forming the initial requirements for what developed into the F22 in ~1981. A mere 6 years after the F-15 was even INTRODUCED.
It still took ~24 years for the f-22 to emerge and become operational from the initial conception of the Advanced Tactical Fighter program.
>>29971089
Meanwhile this ayyy piece of future tech gets canceled.
>>29971299
>it won't need to dogfight, air-to-air combat is all missiles now
t. air force every other fighter generation
>>29971764
>Meanwhile this ayyy piece of future tech gets canceled.
What's even the point of that thing? It has negligible fuselage volume, isn't stealthy, etc.
>t. air force every other fighter generation
It's been true since the start of the 1970s though
>>29971810
What's been true? That the US has never clashed with a non-Arab air force?
>>29971821
What about Vietnam? The F-4 Phantoms that used missiles performed way better than those that eventually received guns.
>>29971839
...tell me why they eventually received guns.
>>29971852
Because. BRRRRT.
>>29971852
Phantoms were getting shot down a lot; both the USAF and USN added podded Vulcans, but they sucked balls because they oscillated on the hardpoints.
The USAF had money, so they tried to fix it by adding an internal gun with a new variant of the F-4, the USN didn't have money, so they trained their maintainers how to look after missiles better and pilots how to use them better (by starting Top Gun).
The USAF Phantoms had their K:D decrease, the USN Phantoms had their K:D increase by nearly 7x.
And even for the USAF Phantoms, most of the kills they did achieve (even with the internal gun F-4E variant), were with missiles.
>>29971913
>maneuvering tactics
Could someone explain that? Do they, like, force the enemy to stall or something?
>>29971821
> what is Serbia
>>29971935
Pretty much; they trick the enemy into doing things like blacking out trying to compete, or crashing their aircraft into the ground.
>>29971935
You trick the other guy into crashing into something.
>>29971913
>B-52D
>50-caliber gunfire
>2
Tail gunner?
>>29972004
Yep: https://tacairnet.com/2015/01/01/gunfight-the-b-52-mig-kills-of-linebacker-ii/
>>29971089
>>On the first demonstration flight, the engine failed. On landing, it stopped within two feet of the end of the runway.
>>Total flight time was roughly 14 seconds.
>>Technician ran out to turn off the battery, accidentally triggered the explosive charge that deploys the parachute.
>>It gently falls around and covers him
>>The parachute packer was away that day
>>And so that was the end of that demonstration.
Sounds like a Three Stooges episode.
>>29971821
>the US has never clashed with a non-Arab air force
>Vietnam
>Serbia
>all the black ops CIA shit in China in the 50's and 60's that is still classified
>>29972043
>Since 1970
>>29968575
Wow, I had no idea that air force generals are now posting on 4chan.
>>29972043
Since the end of the last war against somebody another power bloc sends materiel to, how about that.
>>29967842
What's the difference between F-22 and F-35? I must have been missing something. Is there any besides twin engine thing?
>>29969346
As the Raptor is now the F-35 has the advantage in a2a.
>>29972128
The F-22 is faster, has a higher service ceiling, a more powerful radar, and a better payload for missiles.
The F-35 is supposed to be cheaper than the F-22, but in practice it hasn't really worked out that way.
The F-22 is so much better than the F-35 that it is downright embarrassing for the USAF. They gave up the best fighter in the world and got a lemon in exchange.
>>29972214
Right now, the F-35 has trouble just taking off. How could it have an advantage over the F-22?
>>29972128
The F-22 is an Air Superiority fighter with a design focus on killing other fighters, and has extremely limited A2G, and fairly outdated sensors, comms, and RAM by current standards. And still the best air to air fighter in the world, primarily replacing the oldest F-15Cs.
The F-35 is a multi-role that will have a full-rate production price just over half that of the F-22. It can haul more and bigger munitions. It has what are easily the most advanced 360x360 IR field scanning system, ground targeting electro-optical sniper cam, passive EWO sensor suite, and communications system. Replaces the F-16, F/A-18C/D, and AV-8B.
>>29972217
>The F-35 is supposed to be cheaper than the F-22, but in practice it hasn't really worked out that way.
>F-22 $150m flyaway
>LRIP 8 F-35 ~$110m complete
>>29972274
It's going to be neat seeing what they come up with in the next big war.
>>29972232
>Right now, the F-35 has trouble just taking off.
How's 2008?
>>29972217
>The F-22 is faster
Yes.
>has a higher service ceiling
No.
>a more powerful radar
No, and lacks IRST
>and a better payload for missiles
For now. It also lacks the ability to target for other aircraft.
>The F-35 is supposed to be cheaper than the F-22, but in practice it hasn't really worked out that way.
F-35's in the current LRIP are cheaper than F-22's were in full production.
>The F-22 is so much better than the F-35 that it is downright embarrassing for the USAF. They gave up the best fighter in the world and got a lemon in exchange.
The only 'advantage' an F-22 really has over the F-35 is speed and its reputation.
>>29968575
Go away DARPA, no one wants your shit, nor have they ever.
>>29972380
>Go away DARPA, no one wants your shit, nor have they ever.
So why the fuck are you on the internet?
>>29967842
the 6th gens will be swarms of drones. quantity over quality.
>>29972408
Because Tim Burners-Lee invented it, dumbass.
>>29972232
LE TAKE OFF MEME
>>29972466
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET
>>29972441
No because that ultimately becomes expensive.
>>29972499
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web
Protip: you're using the World Wide Web, not ARPANET, or it's subsquent derivatives.
>>29972532
>Implying WWW works without all the prior baseline works, including ARPANET, Ethernet, and DNS
Wow, you're fucking ignorant.
>>29971810
It was intended to be a DARPA testbed to see if a new type of single-piece swing-wing could prove effective.
If there were any designs of an actual combat aircraft using that wing, I haven't seen them.
>>29972805
>If there were any designs of an actual combat aircraft using that wing, I haven't seen them.
Rockwell had a few
>>29972871
Gotta go fast!
>>29972871
Now listin here billy, to go faster than that there commie missle, you gotta become that there missle.
>>29972914
>>29972922
Funny thing is that it's actually a surprisingly sound concept. Rockwell and NASA did a lot of testing of the concept back in the 70's and 80's and found that it had a lot of promise for improved transonic performance.
Unfortunately by the time NASA actually got around to practical testing all they could get funding for was a half-assed low-speed demonstrator
>>29972956
The design did also have a serious instability issue during transition; while there may be an equal amount of wing on either side of the jet at all times, the amount of drag on each wing wasn't equal due to wake drag on the fuselage.
>>29971264
So its basically a glorified YF-23 with more range payload and stuff to push China's shit in.
>>29973059
Pretty much (it's ironic sorta)
>>29972979
fly by wire could fix that today
>>29972408
>if you dont like this one thing darpa made you dont like ANYTHING THAT DARPA MADE HAHA I GOT YOU YOU WERE WRECKED MY FRIEND *TIPS FEDORA* LAUGHINGWHORES.JPG
he just meant that people dont want this one thing
quit being a sperg
>>29971129
I'll take your uncanny valley and raise you a BRRRT.
>>29972298
Chances are they'll likely use upgraded versions of current platforrms, not tons of entirely new ones like in the second world war.
Then again, unmanned combat platforms could be even more widespread than now. I can honestly see F-35s built as unmanned strike aircraft and being ordered by a mothership aircraft not far away
The last fighter pilot already been born. We are quickly approaching or even surpassed the limits of human resilience to G-forces. Because pilots can't be modified quiet yet, automation is the way to go for planes capable or resisting strong G-Forces.
>>29967842
No.
>source: us military said so
>only drones for next gen
>>29968490
>the next 5 years
they wont even be finished building enough to fill all the orders in 5 years.
>>29969630
well,i didn't expect an erection this early in the thread, and yet, here it is.
>>29974467
If you're still alive in 25 years I want you to remember the moment I told you that you are wrong.
>>29974467
composite planes can't handle high g forces
>>29971821
>the US never fought migs
>>29974882
F-22 is >25% composite materials, shitbird.
>>29973161
>he just meant that people dont want this one thing
>Go away DARPA, no one wants your shit, nor have they ever.
Don't be retarded.
>>29974444
>I can honestly see F-35s built as unmanned strike aircraft and being ordered by a mothership aircraft not far away
>Completely eliminating the advantages of having a pilot to make decisions more quickly and in real time
>>29974467
>The last fighter pilot has already been born.
This triggers fighter pilots.
>>29974924
Not even true.
F-35 won't be unmanned, nor will the F/A-XX
Which already means that statement is incorrect.
>>29974882
Aerospace engineer here. You're a fucking idiot.
>>29968723
The F22 production can't just be resumed, all the special tools and plans were destroyed when the program was ended. It's not like they just have to turn on a few machines and start pumping out F22s again.
>>29974939
>The F22 production can't just be resumed
Except you are wrong.
>all the special tools and plans were destroyed when the program was ended
No, they weren't.
>It's not like they just have to turn on a few machines and start pumping out F22s again.
You're right, it'd take hiring the required staff, set up, parts procurement and purchasing and then manufacturing.
And as of earlier this year, there is already talk about ordering another 194 more F-22's.
>>29974989
>And as of earlier this year, there is already talk about ordering another 194 more F-22's.
There was a request for (another) study to determine how expensive it would be to start the line back up and build more.
>>29975029
Cost analysis is typically implied
>>29972217
>>29972377
Why does the F-35 still exist.
someone explain to me why they've stuck with this fucking thing for so long with so much money?
What can it do that is so amazing it deserves this much time and money to get working?
or is there some sekrit weapon it has we don't know about?
>literally know nothing about fighters.
>>29974989
>And as of earlier this year, there is already talk about ordering another 194 more F-22's.
Theres also "talk" about scrapping the F-35.
But thats all it is. Talk. From politicans that know little to nothing.
>>29975148
My point was simply that the F-22 could be placed back into production, not that it would.
>>29974939
>all the special tools and plans were destroyed
That's completely wrong though. Lockheed was very open about the fact that it was keeping the tooling and training materials for the F-22 because they felt that it was likely to start building more in the future.
>>29975110
Everything. The F-35 can fill Fighter, Ground Attack, EW, and reconnaissance roles. Currently, an F-35 can carry 4 AMRAAMs internally, plus another 8 externally and 2 AIM-9X.
In a ground attack role, the F-35 can carry 6 1000lb JDAMs (2 internal, 4 external) or probably several SDBs internally, or Brimstone Missiles (Internally or externally).
It could easily be converted to a non-stealth EW fighter by tossing sensors and jamming stuff in weapons bays and strapping some HARMs to the external pylons.
Recon? In my Fighter? With an IRST system capable of counting the # of people in a room from 50 nmi in the unclassified version, I'd imagine it's doable without much work.
>>29968723
>Hang glider with two nuggets
Kek
>>29975148
>>29975246
Honestly, the F-35 might turn out to be a good aircraft, but it is simply too expensive for what it is. In hindsight, it would have been better to just acquire newer models of the F-16 and F-15 to replace the current fleet.
>>29975783
Firstly, its not even that expensive.
Secondly, its not replacing the F-15.
Finally, the F-16 is increasingly obsolete.
Got any more memes for me?
>>29975808
>its not replacing the F-15.
>implying that's not part of the problem
>>29976005
That's the F-22's job. The F-35 is replacing every other fixed wing fighter or attack plane other than the A-10.
>>29976005
>The F-35 is too expensive!
>But it needs to cover the F-15C/E role too!!
pottery
>>29967842
If they do, it will be a drone and Prolly space capable.
>>29976137
>Buy newer F-15's to fill the F-15 role
>Buy newer F-16's to fill the F-16 role
Is that so hard to understand?
>>29972232
And the F-22 can't fly in rain and suffocates pilots.
>I can meme too!
>>29976664
But then how do we create new technology to stay ahead of our enemies and potential enemies?
>>29976119
>other than the A-10
You're right, because the A-10 isn't being replaced, it's being retired. Thank God.
>>29976664
Just buying more legacy aircraft to replace the current ones would end up costing more in lifetime costs than the F-35 will. Plus, all the Legacy aircraft are at the end of their development cycles and don't have much more room for improvement.
>>29967842
>F/A-22
The U.S. will not build another manned fighter.
I gotchu senpai
>>29975783
Its going to have a fantastic battle record.
My big concern however is the amount of maintenance it will need.
>>29977605
Less maintenance required than the Raptor.
>>29977638
Are you serious?
I thought the skin had to have constant maintenance and specialized hangars.
>>29977673
yeah, you're mixing up the F-22's maintenance nightmare up with the F-35, which was built with being easier and cheaper to keep flying in mind.
>>29974989
>And as of earlier this year, there is already talk about ordering another 194 more F-22's.
As of earlier this year, a congressman was pushing an F-22 restart as part of a re-election bid.
>>29977673
The RAM coating on the F-35 is baked in, you are thinking of the B-2 or F-117.
>>29973826
is the BRRRRT truly the same if you arent sittling on the gun?
>>29977673
According to an interview with someone who was part of the maintenance crew on the F-35 test team, they're planning on reapplying the stealth skin only if the mission calls for it
Apparently the F-35 is way easier to maintain than the aging F/A-18s/Harriers because they can easily access the parts that need maintenance without taking the whole thing apart
>>29977859
Probably that RAM seam sealing tape between the panels. If the baked-in panel RAM coating itself is damaged, the panel probably has to be replaced and recoated by lockmart.
>>29974989
>>29974939
>>29974475
The tooling and equipment is mothballed right now. We can still set it back up. The real problem is all the people that were involved in making the parts for the aircraft.
It would take 3 years from being told to make another to one being delivered to Edwards AFB. We can't just make more of these things the second we run out.
Also don't question these numbers.
>>29971305
kek
the raptor has seen action. We just won't know about it for 15 years.
>>29976664
>buy aircraft that are nearing obsolescence because feels
>>29976664
Your logic is that we should have just bought F-86 Sabres and replaced them when they wore out for the last 60+ years.
You are retarded.
>>29973826
>>29977766
I bet there is at least one pilot who has actually came in his pants from the vibration stimulation of the holy BRRRT.
>>29971089
The original chute broke the aircraft spine when deployed in flight. Man the RQ-1 Was a piece of shit.
>>29978148
How is the F-35A superior to the F-16E/F?
It isn't.
An F-16 with modern avionics is equal to the F-35 in combat (but much cheaper at the same time).
>>29979613
>It isn't.
More range (even with F-16 CFTs), integrated flir, 360 degree EO awareness, more capacity, better radar, better RWR, stealth.
>>29979613
Just about every single way imaginable
>>29971994
>>29971980
How do you do that? Like, maneuvers wise. Show me vidya and/or pictures.
>>29979613
>what is stealth
>>29980012
A cute buzzword.
I'll take, "What is reduced RCS for 500 Al"
>>29980081
Reduced RCS implys parity between platforms.
Eurofighter has reduced RCS, Super Hornet has reduced RCS. Neither are stealth.
>>29980012
"Stealth" is no longer a thing. The S-400 is capable of detecting the F-35 because the F-35 is only stealthy against the X-band. The S-400 scans across all radar frequencies. Even worse, all Russian jets have forward-facing IRST modules which will be able to detect the F-35. The USAF made a huge miscalculation by thinking that detection would not catch up with stealth.
>>29968775
You are "that guy who gives F-35 fans a bad name"
>>29980124
But anon how will S-400 installations defend themselves from US-funded mole people attacks?
>>29971264
So... no more bubble canopies?
>>29971852
Oooh AND IN THE BLUE CORNER
>>29980124
>"Stealth" is no longer a thing
Stealth is still very much a thing. The s-400 will detect the f-35 at far, far less ranges than it would say, an F-15. That is a huge, huge advantage.
Also, broadband stealth does exist. They might be able to see the F-35, but not the B-2/B-21
>>29975110
Q: >someone explain to me why they've stuck with this fucking thing for so long with so much money?
A: >this much time and money to get working
>>29980171
So then the logical thing would be to leave stealth to bombers and focus on developing fighters which are actually affordable. You realize that the F-35 was originally supposed to cost 60 million per plane, MAX? The costs are way above there they should be. They should have learned from the F-22 that trying to make an all-stealth fleet was a bad idea. It's just too expensive.
>>29977673
F-35 has far better RAM. It's mixed into the skin, not painted on.
>>29972214
Besides the RCS difference in anything but frontal aspect
>>29980216
>You realize that the F-35 was originally supposed to cost 60 million per plane, MAX?
the military didn't get the memo on this "fool me once" thingy..
>>29980216
>So then the logical thing would be to leave stealth to bombers and focus on developing fighters which are actually affordable
No, because the f-35s stealth is still EXTREMELY effective against airborne radars. By the time you get into airborne IRST range, you have already flung missles and keked on home.
>muh 60 million
No modern fighter costs 60 million nowadays, not even the damn modern gripen
>>29980291
The range of IRST keeps increasing every year. The Rafale's frontal sensor can detect emissions from engines out to 100 km. The F-35 has x-band radar stealth but it has no IR stealth.
>>29980322
The best IRST in the world can detect a f-35 from the rear at 100km.
The AIM-120D has a range of over 160km. The metor has range of 100-300km.
I would argue the ablity of missles will always outstrip passive means of detection, and reality agrees with me.
Furthermore, the IRST is frontal aspect only, assumeing a closeing engagement is folly when the F-35 LPIR mode can track with impunity, and the f-35 can orient itself into the best possible attack vectors.
>>29980373
>assumeing a closeing engagement is folly when the F-35 LPIR mode can track with impunity, and the f-35 can orient itself into the best possible attack vectors.
>>29980277
Good find
>>29967842
No.
>>29980322
>The Rafale's frontal sensor can detect emissions from engines out to 100 km.
The Rafale's IRST can detect afterburners out to 100km if it has a direct view, as in if it is behind.
It also lacks a missile with a 100km range, and it certainly lacks a missile with the range to catch an aircraft at 100km that is heading away from it.
>The F-35 has x-band radar stealth but it has no IR stealth.
The F-35 literally uses its fuel as a heat sink for IR stealth.
>>29980373
Yes, but you can't guide a meteor with IRST
You could blindly fire a LOAL python-5/IRIS-T (etc) with booster on it in the general direction of the F-35 and hope it locks on when it gets in range, but if the F-35 makes even a slight movement, the sensor may not be able to lock on.
>>29980468
>What is fuck huge F-135 nozzle
>>29980468
>What is air friction at speed
>>29980448
Ignorance is bliss, a short google search will inform you.
>>29980472
I agree.
>>29980472
>Yes, but you can't guide a meteor with IRST
sure? it can receive control commands mid-flight.
>>29980509
inform me that your scenario is biased as fuck?
>>29980528
Yes, reality is biased as fuck. American airpower is biased as fuck.
>>29980535
and apparently the F-35 also has a radar up it's ass.
>>29980598
No, it has a radar in the front, my dense friend.
>>29980627
so the Typhoon with its wide field of view IRST is at a disadvantage how exactly?
>muh vectors
>>29980667
The f-35 can orient itself to the side and rear before engagement, without the typhoon being aware.
>>29968490
5 years is an incredibly short period of time in this kind of discussion.
>>29980699
ah, yes. because that fixed AESA radar has such a great field of view that the F-35 can do fly-by shootings on the run and showing its side/rear totally doesn't make its exhaust light up like a big fat "shoot me" sign. furthermore, the sluggish typhoon totally can't maneuver itself, that slow fat bitch.
>>29968585
Airplanes? Used to shoot down other airplanes? How preposterous. They are far too fragile for such maneuvers and it is all quite uncivilized.
>>29980759
>because that fixed AESA radar has such a great field of view that the F-35 can do fly-by shootings on the run and showing its side/rear totally doesn't make its exhaust light up like a big fat "shoot me" sign.
The LPIR can track far farther than the typhoons IRST can, even from the rear.
>furthermore, the sluggish typhoon totally can't maneuver itself, that slow fat bitch.
Why would it, it has no idea it is being tracked and engaged upon until its MAW lights up from a missle on terminal.
>>29980483
>rear aspect
>>29980497
The Rafale's IRST is not capable of detecting it at the claimed ranges, and that is not taking into consideration the fuel heat sink system used on the F-22 and F-35.
>>29980804
>The LPIR can track far farther than the typhoons IRST can, even from the rear.
with a small field of view.
>Why would it, it has no idea it is being tracked and engaged upon until its MAW lights up from a missle on terminal.
which then has to catch a mach 2 plane.
>>29980837
>with a small field of view
120 degress is small?
>which then has to catch a mach 2 plane.
Well the missle is going mach 4 and nobody CAPs at mach 2.
>>29980879
Not that anon, but missiles extremely briefly, if at all, reach their maximum speed.
Their motors burn for a few seconds and then they're just slowing down the entire time, which is heavily affected by altitude.
>>29980922
Their airspeed is entirely dependent on if the target is manuvering or not. If you can get 50% there without the target doing anything but going in a straight line, it will stay at mach 3-4. These are not bricks.
Sauce for WEBM?
>>29980843
Are you going to address what was said or keep repeating yourself?
>>29980993
Absolutely, but I'm not sure on the probability of that ever really happening.
webm is from DCS, just because its related. Not taking it as realistic.
>>29981023
>but I'm not sure on the probability of that ever really happening.
A side/rear shot? Yes, it very much can. MAWs range is extremely limited.
I ask because the F-15 was at such a disadvantage. The SU-27 had the jump on him with twice the airspeed and inside of the 27-ERs lesser range.
>>29969630
The same is/was planned for Apaches to control unmanned little birds
http://www.gizmag.com/boeing-apache-demonstrates-uav-control/5506/
>>29972871
>>29981060
Looks like the 15 coulda turned into the 27 and at least prolonged the fight.
>>29980171
Not that it really matters, since low band is worthless for id, track, and engage.
>>29981013
What do you want me to address? Your complete lack of an argument?
No matter how much you try, every supersonic fighter will have a large amount of heat radiating from it's skin.
>>29982278
The fact that it is not enough to let a Rafale see it at 100km?
The fact that the F-22 and F-35 cool their surfaces by using their fuel as a heat sink?
The fact that a Rafale does not have a missile with the range of 100km?
I could go on but you do not seem to have actually put much thought into the subject.
>>29967842
When someone else manages to make a true air superiority fighter that also works.
>>29982454
1. How do you know that?
2. They STILL get hot you dipshit
3. Python 5 + booster
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-33-D68tMd8g/Ub8c8IiNa5I/AAAAAAAAAVU/tDMsbIi0bck/s1600/m02012061300071.jpg
>>29983049
1. The burden of evidence is on you
2. Not as hot as a Rafale
3. Surface to air missile
4. Normie
>>29980216
>and focus on developing fighters which are actually affordable.
Name a single 4.5th gen fighter thats cheaper than the F-35
>>29980922
Thats why we need to work on airbreathing missiles
Smaller, greater payload, longer range
>>29983049
>1. How do you know that?
Because we know 100km is a rear view of afterburners.
>2. They STILL get hot you dipshit
No where near as hot as engine exhaust.
>3. Python 5 + booster
A missile the Rafale cannot fire, and certainly not with a ground launch booster.
>>29976814
Do you really not like the A 10? I'd love to hear why.
>>29968723
US doesn't give a shit about that
What they give a shit, is about showing people that they care about their security and build new modern jets, even if they're not worth
>>29983549
Typhoon, Rafale.
>inb4 citing misleading costs like airframe vs. system
>>29985406
>Both are currently near-parity with LRIP 8 models and $20m over projected FRP
>>29985429
what numbers are you basing this on?
>>29967842
F-XX is probably DOA, and may well be replaced by a new tranche of F-22s. An "F-22E Super Raptor" with the F-35's electronics suite, F-135 engines (with 3-D thrust vectoring), and the F-35's low-maintenance RAM skins would be sexy as hell.
But if the US Navy ever gets their shit together, the "F/A"-XX will probably be the last new-build air superiority fighter that any of us will see, and will probably be the true F-14 replacement that we've all dreamed of.
>>29985471
>Replace a carrier aircraft program with a land-based aircraft
>>29985471
Its actually the F/A-XX.
As in, fighter-attacker. Not something the F-22 is suited to do without heavy modification.
Nor is it navalized.
>>29985471
The F-22 is seriously limited by its internal fuel volume though; it has twice the engines yet even slightly less fuel than the F-35.
>>29985484
>>29985488
They are two separate programs. F-XX is the USAF's program to explore procurement of a 6th-generation follow-on to the F-22, aimed at being a purely air-dominance aircraft.
Meanwhile, the US Navy is plugging along with F/A-XX, which is supposedly going to be a multi-role craft if they ever decide what they actually want.
I put the F/A designation in quotation marks, since the US Navy already has a god-tier attack aircraft in the F-35B/C, along with whatever stealth drones they end up snagging along the way. What they have a glaring need for is an air-dominance/fleet defense aircraft with long legs and some serious anti-ship capabilities.
Imagine an F-14 Super Tomcat 21 loaded with a mix of AIM-54's and Harpoons. Now, imagine that aircraft with F-35-grade electronics/sensor fusion, and F-22 beating stealth.
That's what the US Navy needs desperately right now.
>>29985511
One less X; "F-X" (aka NGAD) is the USAF program, "F/A-XX" is the USN program.
>>29985510
The rumor is that the F-X will have a core performance goal of getting a combat radius of at least 1000 nm on just internal fuel. This could mean that it will either be much larger than the F-22 or they are expecting advances in engines to allow for greater fuel efficiency. Maybe both.
>>29986287
Just a higher fuel fraction.
If you had an F-22 sized aircraft with an F-35 level fuel fraction you would be getting up to that kind of combat radius.
>>29971365
ADFX-01 Morgan Confirmed
>>29985511
>Imagine an F-14 Super Tomcat 21 loaded with a mix of AIM-54's and Harpoons. Now, imagine that aircraft with F-35-grade electronics/sensor fusion, and F-22 beating stealth.
AIM-54 is pretty old. It might need updating.
