I've almost 15 years working as an analyst at a think tank[No, I won't say which.]. Nearly all of my time has been spent researching military aircraft; whether thru examinations of individual types, more broad strategic applications, and anything in-between.
I'm not a super-genius, just very very competent in my field of study. And I'm here to answer any questions you all may have.
>>30057146
What do you think of the A-10?
Are the Chinese jets any good? Can they compete with western counterparts on an idividual dual basis or will they rely on a swarm tactic of sorts?
>>30057146
What is your opinion of the F-35?
>>30057146
>No, I won't say which.
Opinion discarded
Was there any point in which the Soviet VVS would have been able to take on the USAF?
Which MRF should the Philippine Air Force get?
>>30057146
>working
You get paid to armchair general?
Damn. Sign /k/ up.
>>30057146
I can say KC-46 is a pile. Carry on
>>30057146
what do you think of the fact that the 55th wing has been once again flying COBRA BALL ICBM MASINT flights under direction of the Joint Chiefs? A month & a half ago I had thought they were all stood down- Now there are several to a dozen flights a week. Some of them the trainer- (tail number 62-4133), some the other two live aircraft.
Well you've made a thread, what's the next step in your master plan?
>>30057146
ever tried to find your own prostate?
>>30057146
Do you see Russia and China as being friends who would help each other out in a serious war?
how did you get that job?
were you a marine officer?
>>30057340
>Do you see Russia and China as being friends
>Russia
>China
>Friends
Nigga, you're retarded.
To better answer your question though, it'd be an alliance of mutual interest at best. They kinda hate each other.
>>30057190
There's an old saying, "Generals always prepare to fight the LAST war." The A-10 was designed with the last war in mind, that last war being Vietnam. Despite the wealth of aircraft in the U.S. inventory, there was nothing that had been purpose-built for the CAS mission in mind. Even dedicated ground attack aircraft like the A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair had their problems with the role.
The A-6 required too much support its ground crew to have the turn-around time necessary, and it was also incredibly expensive, too much so to risk in the hazardous CAS role. The A-7 was really designed to be a long-range interdictor. The A-1 Skyraider, which was one of the more "effective" CAS types, was just old; the type's aging airframe and combat vulnerability coupled with the extreme fatigue pilots suffered in 10 plus hour flights.
But from these, a few essential characteristics came to the fore: the need for a rugged airframe, possessing both a long loiter time and impressive maneuverability, all while carrying a significant load. It need not be fast, and the aircraft would be as simple to manufacture as possible to facilitate large production numbers.
(cont)
[did not expect this to blow up, posting as fast as I can]
>>30057408
How do you get a job as an analyst?
I'm about to finish my BE w/ Honors in Mech Eng, going Army as an Officer. Is there a path towards becoming an analyst once I get out?
>>30057432
... you do know what the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is.. right??
Think "RED STAR ALLIANCE" from that Frontlines: Fuel of War game.
What's more important, radar electrical power or T/R module count?
>>30057490
...you do know that they've been fighting for centuries...right?
Think Sino-Soviet border conflict from 1969
>>30057146
You post a great pic there OP. Thanks.
Makes me wanna go get that 1/48 scale out of the closet and start glueing it up.
>>30057494
I can get this one. T/R count and signal processing, but power is still important and you can get a lot of mileage out of dumping a lot of power into a radar.
AH64E? Is it the wave of the future?
>>30057490
You realise India and Pakistan are joining it right? Just because two countries join such an organisation doesn't mean they're friends.
what is the most ridiculous aircraft you or your team thought up and tried to make
>>30057146
>thru
>>30057540
And?
France and UK were enemies for hundreds of years, now allies.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are allies.
Japan got NUKED by the USA twice, strong allies today.
The past don't mean shit when you have a common enemy.
It used to be NATO vs USSR
Now its NATO (and baby SEATO) vs SCO
>>30057575
As economic partners, I don't know if they're letting them be part of the Security wing yet. Generally that takes a couple years of integration time.
What 4th generation jet can be most easily mass produced?
>>30057146
What is F-22 & F-35 ECM? Without that golf-ball bullshit.
>>30057643
hmmm.. tossup between F-16 or JAS-39 (base / most common models)..
>>30057656
>ECM?
RCS of course
>>30057146
The X-29 proved that the aeroelastic problem of inverted sweep could be solved.
Why have inverted sweep designs not been further developed?
>>30057248
Depends on the type, but they have parity with 4th Gen fighters in the strictest tactical sense. Logistically and strategically, most Western forces have the edge. And don't forget, their single most common airframe is the J-7, which is really just a somewhat updated copy of a MiG-21 Fishbed.
>>30057190
>>30057436
(A-10 cont)
The A-10 fulfilled most of those requirements, but the problem is, they came from a very different war. It was totally unsuitable for the scenario it was faced with, a Soviet invasion of Western Europe.
It was maneuverable and could loiter for long periods of time, but its lack of speed made it a dead duck against BVR fighters. It was much more resilient to damage, but the ground threats it faced had become more dire; Surface-to-Air missiles and radar-guided cannon had become much more effective and the A-10;s armor could not cope. It's "simple" design also left it with a very austere electronics fit, depriving it of devices like terrain-following radar.
Overall, the A-10 does have some good qualities. While most military aircraft are designed to have their peak performance at high-speed and altitude, the A-10 was destined for sub-500mph flight and much lower altitude. It was configured specifically to lift heavy loads and remain maneuverable. An F-4 Phantom that tried to lift the same weight would find itself firmly sub-sonic as well, but with a much heavier toll on other aspects of its performance. The A-10 excels here.
It was also an attempt (and a rather successful one) to cement the Air Force's role in CAS, and make sure the the Army and it's attack helicopters were proper second-class citizens. Plus, it helped the argument to keep the FX F-15 programme strictly air-superiority, ala the popular "Not a pound for air-to-ground!". I find it funny that while this also succeeded, later development made the F-15 a quite capable ground-attack aircraft.
In short? The A-10 does a few things well, but it doesn't deserve the hype.
Why doesn't IAI build their own jets? They could make a killing on the international market.
>>30057723
>solved
I don't think that word means what you think it means
>>30057146
Is it possible to hot rod an F-4 airframe with modern engines and avionics to make a 3.75 gen fighter?
>>30057190
>>30057248
>>30057274
>>30057288
>>30057303
>>30057310
>>30057322
>>30057331
>>30057340
>>30057438
>>30057557
>>30057643
>>30057656
>>30057671
Oh look, I never thought that /k/ had gullible faggots. I'm glad all of you proved me wrong.
>>30057618
>The past don't mean shit when you have a common enemy.
That doesn't make you friends, and again, Russia and China are not friends. They may be working together right now, but they sure as shit aren't friends. And as this anon >>30057575 said, working together doesn't make them friends. Turkey is a part of NATO, does that mean the US is friends with them? So is Greece, is the US friends with Greece? Is Turkey? Because Turkey and Greece seem to kill each other a bunch for friends.
>>30057146
Can i fuck you in the ass, because you're one massive faggot.
>>30057748
Did they not find a suitable composite pattern to delay aeroelastic divergence?
How has it not been solved? We know the theory behind divergence, and Theodorsen found a solution for flutter.
>>30057763
Gonna need bigger b8
>>30057736
1. That would intrude on their hegemon a bit too much. USA likes their foreign military sales and would get pissy if NYC junior stepped onto that turf.
2. Since USA is so committed to developing hot jets, and Israel is in the first or second tier of ally nations to get new tech, why not buy a slice of that pie? You'll get a massive support system for no extra cost(it's included in the purchase agreements).
3. Israel is a small country. The aerospace industry in 2016 isn't that friendly to small countries.
Also, related to points 2 and 3, Israel does have some defense tech that major players like USA want. It's just narrower, more specialized tech than developing entire jets. More realistic for a small nation to achieve.
>>30057786
>solved
There's that word again. Stop thinking in those terms.
>>30057146
So how exactly does one get a job at these think tanks? And what's the work like? Mostly reading and writing?
>>30057766
the original question was:
>Do you see Russia and China as being friends who would help each other out in a serious war?
Their security pact in the SCO means yes, yes they would.
China would defend Russia, Russia would help defend China.
They don't need to be fucking bum buddies to follow through on a joint security pact.
The USA and Turkey isn't friends, but if they were invaded by an enemy (not Greece), being part of NATO = here comes FREEDOM.
>>30057859
Explain, then?
>>30057274
It has the same problem that the F-111 had, a programme is saddled with desires for commonality between services that instead makes the design overly complicated and leads to a protracted development, cost overruns, and so on. Lockheed has been continually fudging numbers to improve performance and reliability statistics, with makes discerning actual figures more difficult. Like the F-111, it may emerge from the mess, competent in a few given roles. Or it may not. But we'll be using it regardless.
>>30057288
Not in the long-term. Soviet strategy not only dictated tactics, it dictated their aircraft designs. For instance, Soviet jet engines were not as advanced, and could not sustain the high temperatures found in Western engines. In order for Soviet powerplants to approach parity with their counterparts in terms of power, their engineers deliberately sacrificed longevity. A Western engine that had to be refurbished or replaced every 200 flight hours would be considered an abomination, but there were front-line Soviet aircraft whose service times were half that.
I've seen simulations that saw NATO air forces being pushed back, but only initially. The push simply wouldn't have been sustainable.
>>30058042
not the same guy, but just because the issue was "solved", it didn't make it better than a standard wing.
It still has less flight hours between maintenance compared to a standard wing, meaning forward swept wing aircraft become hanger queens like old F-14's.
The issues may have been fixed, making it a wing that wont tear off immediately.. but it still sucks.
The U.S. lost a stealth blackhawk at the Osama bin Ladin raid.
Components from the helicopter were transported to China. How fucked are we?
>>30058121
We're hoping the Chinks don't realize that the coatings don't match the bogus research data we've been leaking them.
>>30058042
>>30058089
There's no solving some kinds of problem, only optimizing and taking tradeoffs.
Think about the whole radar vs VLO contest as an analogy.
>>30058089
>it didn't make it better than a standard wing
More maneuverable, better transsonic characteristics, better stall handling. If composite aeroelastic tailoring is viable, wouldn't the benefits outweigh the drawbacks?
>It still has less flight hours between maintenance compared to a standard wing
Military jets have such high maintenance requirements that I don't think the wings would be a problem. If anything is keeping an aircraft on the ground, it's not the airframe.
>>30058072
You're wrong about NATO winning a war against the Russian Air Force at their relative hight during the early-mid 70's. For any realistic strategic objective (say conquering West Germany up to the Rhine) their Air Force would have been able to stay in the air as long as the war remained conventional, so under a 7-10 days.
>>30058072
Of course, but the Soviets were never intending to fight an offensive war, which is primarily why WW3 never kicked off.
Their low services lives make sense when you're not flying the entire length of Europe.
>>30058166
>There's no solving some kinds of problem, only optimizing and taking tradeoffs.
Optimizing and taking tradeoffs is basically what aircraft design is all about anyways. Ok, it's not been "solved", but that's like saying flying hasn't been solved because gravity still exists.
>>30058201
No, because you'd be changing wings on the damn airframe constantly to get any sort of lifespan out of it.
Until they can get forward swept wings to last +/- 30 years, of about 6-8000 flight hours, then they're not worth it.
>>30058220
>Of course, but the Soviets were never intending to fight an offensive war, which is primarily why WW3 never kicked off.
Bullshit. Their version of a defensive war means striking first. Even their defensive plans called for sweeping across Europe..
>>30058244
>No, because you'd be changing wings on the damn airframe constantly to get any sort of lifespan out of it.
Source? Just curious, I'm not familiar with how composite materials age.
>>30058121
>The U.S. lost a stealth blackhawk at the Osama bin Ladin raid.
What? How did that happen?
>>30058295
You don't remember that? It crashed. If I had to guess, it probably got into a vortex ring state.
>>30058295
It was so stealthy we just lost it.
POOF!
>>30058295
google "settling with power"
>>30058273
It's not that the composites age badly, it's because of the extra twisting** in the wing root that causes material fatigue much MUCH faster than a standard wing.
You could overcome this with just a stronger/thicker root and skin at the fuselage joining point, but that's now more weight, which decreases the benefits gained from the forward sweep and increases cost.
So until they make some sort of super material that can take the additional stresses like a champ for 8000+ flight hours, without a terrible increase in cost involved, we won't see them being used in military aircraft.
(**at high airspeeds.. if its a subsonic aircraft, say a future A-10, it would work just fine right now)
>>30058033
>the original question was:
>>Do you see Russia and China as being friends who would help each other out in a serious war?
And my reply was >>30057432
>Friends
To which I stated no.
>who would help each other out in a serious war
To which I answered yes, but not because they are friends.
They are not friends who would help each other out in a war, they are two countries that would help each other out in a war for mutual benefit.
Your answer is wrong, as the question predicated, at least in part, that alliance on them being friends. Which is not, and would not, be the basis for an alliance between Russia and China.
>They don't need to be fucking bum buddies to follow through on a joint security pact.
Never said otherwise.
>The USA and Turkey isn't friends, but if they were invaded by an enemy (not Greece), being part of NATO = here comes FREEDOM
First, >Isn't
Second, I was answering the original post's question in two parts, as I've already stated. First that no they are not friends, and second that yes they would help one another regardless, out of mutual interest.
Now learn to read before posting, because I never said they wouldn't help each other out in a war, I said it'd be an alliance of mutual interest despite them not being friends. So you bringing up the original question shows one of a few things. A. You didn't read my post in full. B. You didn't read the original question in full. or C. That you are trying to deflect your losing by making a shit ass 'this is irrelevant' argument when in the context of the question it clearly isn't.
>>30058033
>>30058380
Oh, and I'm going to bed. If the thread is still up tomorrow ( and you actually say something worthwhile), I'll consider replying then.
>>30058380
>and second that yes they would help one another regardless, out of mutual interest.
Would Russia want to get into a limited war in the Pacific which escalates it into a global conflict? Somehow I sincerely doubt it. Getting involved in such a war is counter to their interests. If the US gets into a war with either of the two, the other is likely to sit it out, because getting involved harms them more severely than just sitting it out.
>>30057303
I like the Saab Gripen for the role, but they're not even in the race. India's Tejas is also an interesting possibility; it meets a lot of their requirements and there's also some political force behind it.
>>30057331
It's a bit disconcerting, especially since they're using all three aircraft. If they're actually looking for launches, why use the trainer? And if they're not looking for launches...it is a puzzle, and one I don't really have the answer to.
>>30057340
Define "friends". Could they, under extreme circumstances, work together towards a mutual strategic goal? Certainly. However, their common voting bloc in the UN does not extend into the real world. They would be allies of necessity.
>>30057408
>>30057438
I have no military background. I got a double major in History and Political Science. Worked abroad for a few years. Military aviation was a passion of mine since I was 8, I had dozens of books on the subject before I was out of High School. My graduation present was a subscription to Jane's.
When I was 24, I wrote a research article on the complications of the F-111 programme and how it reflected corresponding problems in policy. That on my resume was probably what got me a job 3 months later.
>>30057494
>>30057556
Answered more succinctly that I would have, but yes. Though the question reminds me of an article I read on MiG-25s. Their radar was designed to burn through enemy ECM and had an unbelievable amount of power behind. The article I read said that under 50yards, it could kill small animals when activated. Anecdotal, but a good story.
>>30058414
>Would Russia want to get into a limited war in the Pacific
>Limited war
Then it's not a severe war as stated in the original question.
>If the US gets into a war with either of the two, the other is likely to sit it out, because getting involved harms them more severely than just sitting it out.
That depends on the circumstances because, if nothing else,
>What is a mutual defense agreement
I repeat >>30058404 , good night.
>>30058372
Hmm, I see your point. How do composite fare compared to aluminum, in terms of fatigue?
>>30058414
>sitting it out
>becoming the sole remaining opponent to USA hegemony
Why would they sit out the only real chance they have in dealing a blow to the superpower?
Together (the SCO) they have a chance.
Sitting by watching the others shit get pushed in doesn't benefit the other at all unless they're planning to just bow down and accept Uncle Sam as their boss.
>>30058467
>>becoming the sole remaining opponent to USA hegemony
That's the problem. You aren't going to be invading mainland China. You aren't going to be pushing onwards to Moscow. Any war which would be fought would likely be limited in scope or scale, and the countries which fight it will be relatively intact afterwards, even in defeat. The countries will not be dismantled. You know why? Nuclear weapons. If a country feels like its mainland territorial integrity is in question, they might send a message that any further incursion results in a nuclear exchange. Think the Samson Protocol allegedly followed by Israel.
Sorry folks, but two hours is my limit and I have to call it a night. It looks like the conversation has rolled on without me anyway. I may pop in tomorrow morning, apologies for not getting to every question.
>>30058462
Depends on the fatigue, the composites, and their construction pattern.
You have compression, torsion, and tensile forces at play.. oh and I guess impact = sudden compression & torsion all at once.
In general terms, you can have composites outperform aluminum in all scenarios. But holy shit that price tag.
To put in basic terms, you can get a Kitfox S7 Cub, which is a civilian all aluminum homebuild aircraft for under $80,000.. then you have its Carbon Cub brother, which is all composites (with a smidgen of metals here n there), but it will set you back well over $300,000.
Composites win, but at what cost.
We do see an increasing amount of composites being used in military birds though, look no further than what China is doing with its J-11 and J-15 Sino-Flankers. The new ones have a lot of metals being replaced by composite parts, possibly to bring composite costs down for its J-20 and J-31 fighter lines.
>>30058520
With all the preparations being made by a resurgent Russia and China; plus with fusion warheads being much more environmentally friendly, I would not be surprised one bit if nuclear war was to break out in my lifetime.
>>30058636
im sorry but hydrogen bombs are by no means environmentally friendly
>>30058144
>We're hoping the Chinks don't realize that the coatings don't match the bogus research data we've been leaking them.
>Mentioning that
Seriously nigga? What the fuck. Hopefully that Blackhawk wasn't brand fucking new RAM and instead F-117 era RAM. Then again, I don't think the Chinese would be able to tell the difference, and how would we know if they could?
what's the deal with increased plane intercepts in the pacific? just regular intimidation/propaganda or is there something more to it?
>>30058737
China growing a pair
>>30058674
Are you saying that they are worse than Fission bombs for radioactive fallout?
>>30058595
>But holy shit that price tag.
>Composites win, but at what cost.
Not that significant compared to the overall cost of the jet. Carbon fiber isn't that expensive.
>>30058636
Them being environmentally friendly has nothing to do with it.
>>30058769
Im saying you lack the understanding of how fusion devices work.
Fusion devices require a fission bomb to set them off. you can't get away from that, all the stuff about fusion bombs being cleaner is cleaner per given yield size. you will always have the pollution of a Fission bomb mixed in, that never magically goes away. so on terms of environmental damage, it really doesn't matter how big the yield of the bomb is, its still going to contaminate the environment as much as a fission bomb. just not more so.
>I never said they were worse, im saying they are identical.
>>30058858
If you think its carbon fiber being used in their jets, you are very out of touch in the composites world.
>>30058250
>Their version of a defensive war means striking first.
Actually nope.
Warsaw Pact military plan for WW3(conventional) went as follows:
>bait NATO up till Vistula/Oder rivers
>launch amphibious assault in Pomeranian coast
>either encircle or force NATO to do quick and relatively disorganised retreat.
That being said NATO was also ready for defensive conflict(muh Fulda Gap) as far as conventional arms go.
>>30058899
>is cleaner per given yield size
boom, its now all good in the politicians eyes that's pushing the go button.
>>30059002
yep, thats why we use nuclear weapons all the time right? right??
>>30059012
It hasn't come to that point yet.
>>30059026
sure, but the effects on the environment will not matter in the slightest no matter how horrid it is when it gets to that point.
>>30058995
Horseshit. That may have been one plan, but it goes directly against Soviet policy. Need I remind you of Able Archer '83?
>>30058072
>Lockheed has been continually fudging numbers to improve performance and reliability statistics, with makes discerning actual figures more difficult.
Source on fudged numbers?
>>30057146
what are your thoughts on the recent space-x barge landing? does this open any interesting possibilities in the near term in terms of refueling, or cargo?
>>30057146
Is stealth a meme ?
>>30058899
This is a bit wrong.
Fuison boosted fission weapons (thermonuclear weapons, H-bombs, fusion bombs, ect) use the fusion of light elements to compress and accelerate the fission reaction. This uses up more fuel and consumes a lot of the very dangerous short lived fission byproducts that would otherwise be scattered by the explosion. This makes fusion-boosted-fission weapons much 'cleaner' then pure fission devices.
>>30058072
Speaking of the F-111, were the RAAF able to keep our F-111Cs in service after you retired them? Or did we just bury them for no reason?
>>30060284
Not that anon but weren't they basically falling apart and needy in terms of maintenance?
>>30058072
My mom's bro was a test pilot, died testing a plane.
How do I figure out which plane it was?
>>30059418
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=release&prod=172467&cat=3
There's also the rather famous example from early development where they kept increasing the allowed weight.
>>30060284
My brother used to work on them.
They were fantastic for our desired purpose (strike bomber role), but the maintenance was getting more and more extensive as they were aging.
If someone were to turn around and make a modern F-111 or F-14 from scratch, we'd probably buy it, because Superbugs and F-35 can not match them as bomb trucks.
>>30060470
>because Superbugs and F-35 can not match them as bomb trucks.
Maybe because they're entirely different classes of aircraft.
Might as well compare an F-35 to a B-1B.
>>30060743
Exactly, but there's nothing that fits that niche anymore.
Australia has no need for a strategic or large bomber, but our very large area necessitates long range, top tier strike bombers.
Anyone we might fear a conflict with in this region would be severely impacted by long range strike bombers supported by EW and air superiority fighters, rather than a single multirole force.
Probably the only modern aircraft that would fit this role is the SU-34, but I doubt we'd be buying Russian equipment any time soon.
>>30057731
>and make sure the the Army and it's attack helicopters were proper second-class citizens.
Well, they were successful at killing the AH-56 Cheyenne, which was for the best because it paved the way for the Apache.
>>30057766
29. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.
http://schlockmercenary.wikia.com/wiki/The_Seventy_Maxims_of_Maximally_Effective_Mercenaries
>>30060250
This is a bit wrong.
the very dangerous short lived fission products are not used up, the longer lived actinides are used up making more short lived dangerous fission byproducts. the fission byproducts are not fertile or fissile, they will not be destroyed, your entire point that your trying to correct him on is wrong. and actually makes your argument worse
>>30058072
>It has the same problem that the F-111 had, a programme is saddled with desires for commonality between services that instead makes the design overly complicated and leads to a protracted development, cost overruns, and so on.
That's a questionable comparison at best. One F-35 has never been $600 million like early F-111s, and the F-35s issues are all on the software side, which is a constant development thing.
As for the cost/dev time overruns, the original estimates were completely impossible to acheive anyways, so why hold them up as if it's a failure point?
>>30058144
Ive got serious doubts that you are what you say you are, but for the sake of argument, its public knowledge or at least assumption that even if your adversary copies you, you control their evolutionary path, and requirements, which is a massive advantage.
On the false data, it slows them down, but with mass spectrometer and plasma destructive testing, there is no doubt they gleaned some knowledge from the coatings. However lets get into haveglass, it had to the publics knowledge, 4 generations. we are on UHG now, with HG1-2 being pretty well known about and likely reverse engineered by now. 3, maybe not so much, UHG is US exclusive. So helicopter loss, not much lost that wasn't already known.
Final thing. China and the US wont fight, as US is using china to consolidate it's allies and make a point that the world has to pick a side of the fence to sit on, and consolidate/ centralize. Both sides know it.
>>30061676
Because he's full of shit and has no idea what he's talking about.
The F-111 comparison is a pretty good litmus test to see if someone bitching about the F-35 is just bullshitting. Superficially, the programs are similar
>common airframe between multiple branches
>filled with revolutionary features and new technology
>controversial due to development issues and cost overruns
But it doesn't really hold up to any scrutiny. The F-111 tried to combine two roles with widely diverging requirements - a fleet-defense interceptor and a long-range interdictor. That'd be difficult enough to do today, let alone with 1960s technology, and it's no surprise that it didn't go well (for the F-111B at least). But every F-35 variant is designed around the same general role (multirole strike fighter) with similar requirements across all three airframes. The variant that diverges from the others the most - the F-35B - was only included in the first place because Lockheed's research proved that a STOVL variant could be incorporated into a design without compromising the other variants.
If this guy actually knew what he was talking about, his opinion would be the same as Dr. Beliquava's (the guy who invented the lift fan system for the F-35) - development got delayed by the fact that they wanted to mature a ton of technology for the aircraft without adjusting schedules and budgets.
>>30061947
I for one, really liked the F-111
>>30060786
I would argue nothing fits the role.
Su-34's are pretty shit tier, and you have a massive area to cover. Your budget just isn't high enough to actually protect that landmass.
>>30061947
>the F-35s issues are all on the software side
Lolno
>>30062564
Please note actual physical/design issues that aren't:
A: Solved
B: Memes
>>30062519
The F-111 really was a great strike aircraft/interdictor, but the F-111B was a clusterfuck because of the Navy's weird requirements:
>side by side seating
>ejection capsule
That made it too heavy to be useful. Unfortunately, with the technology at the time, the TFX requirements meant that they could either make a good interdictor and shitty interceptor or good interceptor and shitty interdictor, but not both.
Oddly enough the arrangement the USAF wanted - with tandem seating and normal ejection seats - was exactly what the Navy ended up getting with their F-111B replacement.
>>30062564
>the F-35s issues are all on the software side
Where did I say that?
>>30057334
Crashing this board...
if you had to equip a south american country like argentina, what aircraft would you choose?.
>>30058308
>>30058362
>Dark as fuck
>Flying through NVGs with shit for peripheral vision
>LZ is a tiny fucking walled-off yard
>practice facility used fences to simulate walls so rotor wash effects would be dramatically different
I kind of doubt VRS was specifically responsible, but there are plenty of legitimate excuses why the helicopter might have crashed.
>>30062658
>Solved issues don't count
But fine, the F-35's sluggish kinematics for one. Not solved and never will be solved.
>>30062846
>Sluggish kinematics
Oooh, its an energy fighter as opposed to a turn fighter, such a huge problem. If that was such a big dieal why isnt it an issue for the F/A-18?
>>30057146
>I've almost 15 years working as an analyst at a think tank[No, I won't say which.]. Nearly all of my time has been spent researching military aircraft; whether thru examinations of individual types, more broad strategic applications, and anything in-between.
Here's something you're uniquely qualified to inform me on, then - what's the best open/civilian sources for getting an idea of the maneuvering capabilities of active-service aircraft? Any asshole can look up wing-loading and lift/drag coefficient on Wikipedia (sometimes,) but that doesn't tell the whole story, not by a long shot. And you can sometimes find people arguing on forums about what this or that fighter's maximum turn rate is, but good luck getting actual numbers on the *roll rates,* esp. on how that roll rate varies at various airspeeds.
That's the crucial information that really means something to people who understand ACM, but it's also the hardest to find. I understand that a lot of that data will be educated guesses by necessity, but educated guesses from the well educated are a hell of a lot better than nothing. Unfortunately I have no idea where to start looking.
Belgium needs to buy new fighters soon. They're used for airspace policing and NATO bombing after air superiority has been achieved.
What plane do you think will be selected & which plane would you prefer for the role?
>>30057835
>all these answers that consistently take market realities and geopolitical issues into account vis a vis development and distribution of weapons tech
... huh. OP is actually telling the truth about what he does. Sumbitch.
>>30058436
>And if they're not looking for launches...it is a puzzle, and one I don't really have the answer to.
Neither does any other intel analyst, especially ones paid in yuan or rubles. Which might be the point.
>>30057756
Generation... -3.25
What's your opinion on the Lindy effect in relation to weapon systems?
>>30062988
Belgium has little aeronautics industries and is too small to intervene alone anywhere.
West Europe so not so freaked by Russian confrontation, territory security and coalition intervention in sandniggerstan will be the main use.
With its extended ties with France and common language facilitating training I'd recommend the rafale.
Jsf could do it better and the dutch and several other europans will have it but it's more expensive and realistically a bit overkill for the uses Belgium will need.
Especially considering it won't get much in terms of technological transfer.
Rafale is modern enough to be relevant for a while and outperform most developing countries airforces and air defences when supported properly (ie: in a coalition).
Latest gen typhoon could be interesting too though
>>30057494
Emitter count. Emitter count correlates directly to antenna directivity/gain, and antenna gain works twofold, both on the initial transmitted signal AND on intensifying the received return. So for a given range and target RCS, double the emitter count will yield a fourfold increase in signal strength, whereas double the transmit power will only double the received signal strength.
On top of that, if you're trying to minimize your radar's signature (i.e. for LPIR), you might want to keep transmitted signal strength low anyways. Under these circumstances, transmitted power doesn't net you anything at all, while antenna gain still improves your receive sensitivity.
>>30063211
>With its extended ties with France and common language facilitating training I'd recommend the rafale.
Belgium currently trains their fighter pilots in France, at a shared base. This is cheaper and allows you to mix both countries' experiences into your training.
The alliance with the Dutch is a naval one.
From that point of view the Rafale makes sense. The biggest hurdle for it is however that Belgium still has american nukes which are supposed to be delivered by fighter planes with nuclear funswitch (like our F16s).
The Rafale cannot deliver these nukes. The F-35 can.
Personally, I don't see any value to keeping these nukes. They were meant to blow up russian tank brigades that pushed past german defenses.
The Rafale however is more costly on paper than the F-35. Though in practise I have serious doubts about the F-35 being cheaper.
The Superhornet & lil' Saab are contestants too desu. On paper the Eurofighter too, but I kinda doubt it'll be given the light of day.
I suspect large parts of the air force will push for the Rafale while politicians will want the F-35.
>>30063302
>desu
Where the fuck did that come from?
>>30057756
Sure. Most F-4 airframes are pretty well worn-out though, so I don't see much point.
>>30063356
And you'd get a much better deal on used F-16s anyway.
>>30057146
What's your opinion on the SR-72? Is speed the new stealth?
>>30063336
you probably typed desu or senpai.
>>30063336
it used to be F.A.M., but then Hiroshima Nagasaki had it changed to desu in order to troll us
>>30063421
Stealth became the new speed. Spy planes used to be able to fly high and fast. Then missiles came out which could do both. A missile will be able to exceed any speed a plane could fly. Thus, stealth came along.
>>30062909
Because Pierre Sprey likes the F/A-18
>>30063784
Sauce? I've heard him compliment the F-15 in performance.
>>30057146
>thru
try harder next time
>>30057146
What would a modern-day version of the Battle of Britain look like?
>>30062909
>Oooh, its an energy fighter as opposed to a turn fighter, such a huge problem.
Other way around. But thanks for confirming you have no idea what you're talking about.
>If that was such a big dieal why isnt it an issue for the F/A-18?
The F/A-18 may not be as good of an energy fighter as the F-16, but at least it can sustain more than 5 fucking Gs in dogfight configuration.
>>30057146
What is the world's cutest plane and why is it the F-16?
>>30057340
>>30057432
Russia is terrified of becoming the junior partner in their association and are deeply concerned of the ethnic chinese population in their eastern resource-rich siberian territories as they believe China is bound at one point or another to try and claim it.
>>30062542
How are they shit tier?
They're long range strike bombers - they fit our needs better than anything else currently.
We don't need fucking stealth or multirole fluff in our strike bombers, just the ability to accurately truck and deliver bombs.
>>30063928
>What would a modern-day version of the Battle of Britain look like?
nothing like it,
nor there is any barely realistic political scenario in which to air forces of comparable magnitude and technological preparednes could ever engage ina war
>>30063928
It'd look like the efforts prior to the Battle of Britain- hitting factories and other military targets. However, instead of raids of several hundred aircraft, it'd be of maybe two dozen aircraft.
>>30063928
nukes changed the nature of war, there will never again be huge confrontations like in ww2
because of retarded little manchilds who think war is fun like you mostly
if you want to know how the next war will be watch threads (1984). its the most accurate representation so far
>>30063996
>The F/A-18 may not be as good of an energy fighter as the F-16, but at least it can sustain more than 5 fucking Gs in dogfight configuration.
>F-35A is rated for 9g in Dogfight config just like the F-16
>>30062846
>the F-35's sluggish kinematics for one
>accelerates faster than an F-16
>Hornet tier AoA handling
He asked for real issues, not memes.
>>30063928
It wouldn't happen.
Loss of life and equipment is 100 fold worse nowadays, we just simply could not economically bear it.
>>30057146
What fighter should Argentina buy?
>preferably single engine
>cheap maintenance
>without UK-made parts
Is the Kfir C10 a good option?
>>30064521
>Doesn't know the difference between instantaneous and sustained
Like I said, clueless.
>>30064588
>accelerates faster than an F-16
Until the F-16 dumps the bags, that is.
>Hornet tier AoA handling
Post-stall AoA actually IS a meme.
>>30065270
Gripen would be great, but it has a lot.of american parts. It's also a bit old and surclassed by many current planea around the world. It's still robust ans would fare well against other developing countries airforces.
Note that Brazil is ordering 36 of them to modernize its fleet.
You coukd also consider rafale as French already provided super étendards and exocet missiles that proved useful during the Falkland war.
They make the whole plane themselves and even the munitions so rafale could be an option if you are looking at strategic independence from Britain and anglos in general.
But it's not cheap and maintenance would be complex. Honestly if you want to be relevant, any modern plane will have expensive and complex maintenance because current gen jet fighters are marvels of technologies with a lot of avionics.
I don't know about the Russian options available for export. The Chinese aren't ready according to me but there are a bunch of extremely knowledgeable people here that could correct me.
>>30065270
F-35 Lightning
>>30065587
>Doesn't know the difference between instantaneous and sustained
>Like I said, clueless.
The irony is deafening.
>>30065587
>Until the F-16 dumps the bags, that is.
Not what actual pilots who fly both aircraft say.
>Post-stall AoA
I never said post stall, but thanks for trying.
>>30064272
What you're describing is a COIN aircraft.
>they fit our needs better than anything else currently.
Are you saying in a perfect world or the situation you're in at the moment? Because your airforce of <90 Hornets, most of which are A/B, is not one that can support that shit.
You will never defend australia's landmass with that level of military investment.
What you're looking at is replacing your multiroles, which is all you can really afford to operate, which is why the F-35 is superior to the F-111 or the Su-35 or any other aircraft that can barely defend itself in air to air.
>>30065696
Are you seriously suggesting the F-35 is capable of sustaining 9 Gs, even after they had to reduce the maneuverability specs to account for worse-than-expected performance?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-sig-381683/
>>30065728
>Not what actual pilots who fly both aircraft say.
>Hurr, subjective anecdotes > quantitative tests
>I never said post stall
"Hornet-tier" 40+ deg AoA IS post-stall, whether you're aware of it or not.
>>30065819
No, we don't need a COIN aircraft to defend against our local enemies.
COIN aircraft are great against undeveloped forces, but we need aircraft that aren't sitting ducks and can reliably drop bombs on the other side of the continent.
A multirole just can't do that.
>>30065867
>but we need aircraft that aren't sitting ducks and can reliably drop bombs on the other side of the continent.
>A multirole just can't do that.
Yeah no shit, the only thing thats going to have a combat radius of more than 3500km is a fucking strategic bomber. Hell, even the B-1B's limit is stretched if you're asking for that. You're delusional if you think that would work.
>>30065899
What I'm saying is that the F-111 was the last aircraft to fit our needs.
A strategic bomber requires too much resources and support, whilst long range strike bombers are capable of minor force projection and fantastic area denial against invading forces.
A multirole can't do that, a strategic bomber would be too costly for us and nothing made in the last 40 years fits our use case.
It's like Canada - the have an individual need for long range interdictor/superiority craft, but nothing that fits their use case has been made available to them.
>>30065958
>whilst long range strike bombers are capable of minor force projection and fantastic area denial against invading forces.
Please stop using terms you don't understand.
Besides which, you're just talking out your ass at this point. Bring up your """""need"""" for bombing across the continent and then suddenly drop it when I point out the F-111 can't even make it a third of the way.
>>30066000
Checked
>>30066000
Sure, the F-111 would travel all the way from Sydney to Broome.
It surely wouldn't operate out of a Western or Northern airbase.
The F-111 had great range, great payload, fantastic cruising speed and was better at its role than any multirole out there.
It's a pity that nothing has come forth to replace it.
>>30058734
Well the supposed modifications were done at some point in the 90's so it won't be cutting edge by modern standards. From the alleged witnesses the aircraft had that F-117 style angular look and I'd imagine that there's only so much you can do to bolt RCS reduction onto an existing and now kind of old airframe.
>>30066143
>Sure, the F-111 would travel all the way from Sydney to Broome.
>It surely wouldn't operate out of a Western or Northern airbase.
You brought it up in the first place as a requirement you silly nig nog.
>The F-111 had great range, great payload, fantastic cruising speed and was better at its role than any multirole out there.
>It's a pity that nothing has come forth to replace it.
Sure it did. But you can't afford to operate it when you have a tiny air force and little to support it, which would be required. For multiroles, the backbone of most airforces, it isn't required so much.
Could operate B-52s for all it mattered if you don't have sufficient fighter escort.
>>30064451
>because of retarded little manchilds who think war is fun like you mostly
what a reasonable and called-for response
>>30065855
Are you seriously suggesting any fighter is capable of sustaining 9 G turns?
>quantitative tests
>clean F-16 equals an F-35A
Thank you for evidencing why the pilots that actually fly them say the F-35 accelerates faster.
>"Hornet-tier" 40+ deg AoA IS post-stall, whether you're aware of it or not.
Again, I said AoA handling, not how high of AoA it can handle. As an example, have a video of a Super Hornet handing an Eagle its ass.
http://youtu.be/Icto81Z92fk
>>30057146
Do you think boeing should have won JSF?
>>30067765
good fucking god no
>massively less capable STOVL variant
>shitty STOVL system that forced an unfavorable layout on conventional variants
>final design wasn't even anything like the prototypes that were tested
>>30067761
Sustaining 9 gs clean is not a problem for most fighters 4th gen and beyond.
>>30069109
To be fair the F-35 is, in many ways, more a small bomber then large jet.
>>30067761
>Are you seriously suggesting any fighter is capable of sustaining 9 G turns?
I wasn't, though early-block F-16s could do so in dogfight configuration. I do doubt current F-16s can though, due to the typical weight bloat that most fighters suffer as they age. I shudder to think what F-35s will be like 20 years from now. Those all-aspect missiles damn well better work as advertised.
>clean F-16 equals an F-35A
Yes, roughly. Until the F-35 tries to turn.
>have a video of a Super Hornet handing an Eagle its ass.
Again with the anecdotes? Put a scrub in the adversary's cockpit and you can make any jet look good.
>Look everyone, T-38 > F-22: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXmDj3mFrXQ
Chile gonna buy f 35 to replace his f5's?
>>30057731
> "Not a pound for air-to-ground!"
This is a false statement. F-15a avionics supported air-to-ground weapons (dumb bombs and rockets). Support for "smart weapons" came with F-15E.
>>30057303
Su-35.
They really need a plane with huge range.
>>30060470
Germany is looking for a partners to make Panavia Tornado successor.
According to rumors it might end up as stealthy mini F-111.
>>30070542
Hard to recommend them. The cost to keep them flying would be prohibitive.
>>30070568
We don't need a mini F-111 though, we need an F-111 successor.
>>30070652
Why not just get a proper bomber, then, like the B-1?
>>30070568
>according to rumors
Which rumors?
>>30069720
>early-block F-16s could do so in dogfight configuration
At low altitude with little fuel and just a pair of Sidewinders, so never in a real situation meaning your entire argument was a lie.
>Until the F-35 tries to turn.
The F-35's acceleration will always be better than an F-16's.
>Again with the anecdotes?
Done arguing your strawman so soon?
>>30069720
The best part about this chart is that it says the F-16's sustained G load at the altitude the F-35's number came from isn't much different.
>>30069720
>ANECDOTE, ANECDOTE REEEEE
>these people with real experience do not count because it contradicts my worldview
>>30070629
Proof?
Gripen E or F-35?
Finnish defence forces is battling this question as we speak.
>>30070652
>we need an F-111 successor.
you need an overpriced hangar queen? what for?
>>30070809
not survivable. also, see above.
>50 hours of maintenance per flight hour
>$60k per flight hour
>>30071156
That's the thing though, the B-1 is the closest modern aircraft to the F-111, because the Aardvark was a bunch of bad decisions piled together.
>>30057436
>>30057731
>A-10 was developed FOR the Vietnam War
Am I reading this correctly? Good thread OP, nice b8.
>>30071490
A-10 wasn't envisioned as a tank buster until 3 years after the first RFI.
>source: I spent two minutes on Wikipedia.
>>30071490
no, you're not, get some lessons on reading comprehension
A-10 was made obsolete by self-propelled SAMs that could roll with tank columns
This seems like the most aircraft related thread on the board right now, so I'll just post it here. A second photo of T-50-6 in flight.
>>30071894
Nice engines.
>>30071894
>painted cowlings
WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW
>>30057756
You can actually do anything if you throw enough money at it.
Thing is, the cost of the frame is absolutely tiny in comparison to the components that go in the frame. The engines, Avionics, Wiriting, Radar, EW, hydro, Power gen, etc,
You also need a production line if you are going to modernize a fleet like that. If the line doesn't exist anymore, this can be nasty as a start up cost.
as an individual one off air racer/ show boat. Hell yeah.
You cut the frame on those older metal birds, slam in some F-135 engines, maybe add on full 3D thrust vectoring, modernize the wings with leading edge surfaces, add on some canards and replace the canopy with an F-15/F-16 canopy for better visibility.
>>30065641
Actually american parts are not the problem. But British are.
Rafale, isn't it too expensive? I don't think we could mantain it in flying order even with a 5% defence budget...
Would the JF17 be a better option? Talking new, we should consider 24 + 2 (single seats, plus two trainers).
>>30071081
Mean time between overhauls for the AL-31 is around 1000 hours, with 3 overhauls in it's lifespan. It's a very expensive aircraft to operate.
>>30071252
Well, all studies done by Tornado operators about a successor were everything but not a mini F-111.
If a Tornado 2 really happens then it would be come a EW rape machine with additional focus on reconnaissance and would also operate as control ship for drones and cruise missiles.
>>30073790
Su-35S doesn't use AL-31 engines.
>>30073904
>AL-41F1S
It's a AL-31 with a few modest upgrades. MTBO is the same and Russian claims you can get another overhaul out of them before they hit the trash heap are suspect. It's also more expensive, and again MTBO is the same and the Filipinos would have to ship them back to Russia for overhauls.
>>30073949
Quality wikipedia analysis. Now back to real life, it's a heavily modified derivative of AL-31F engine with the use of technologies form AL-41F, Russian equivalent of the engine for YF-23. Its MTBO is 4000 hours and just like any other Russian engine it is piss cheap and easy to maintain and replace.
>>30074008
>Russian equivalent of the engine for YF-23
Much like the Lada is the Russian General Motors.
That's to say, that comparison is laughable.
> just like any other Russian engine it is piss cheap and easy to maintain and replace
None of that is correct, and is meme-tire bullshit of people assuming Russian equipment is easy to work on. Much of it is maintenance nightmares where the plan is to use it up, throw it out and get another one.
>MTBO is 4000 hours
That's the lifetime of the engine, genius.
>>30074087
No, just like they are both VCE and the Russian one had more thrust.
>Anything I disagree with is a meme
>>>/b/
>That's the lifetime of the engine
No, it is not. Unless of course you are willing to argue the information given by the manufacturer.
>TBO (4000 hours against 1000)
http://www.umpo.ru/Good27_16_141.aspx
>>30060786
What about F-15E Strike Eagle? It was used to replace the F-111.
More pics. It kinda looks less dakka now that the engines are covered.
>>30074455
>>30074464
Its as much of a hack job to anyone who understands anything about aircraft as it was before.
So I guess gg Russia. Should convince 99.9% of your Vatnik following.
>>30074472
>hack job
Gook projections. Go play with your refurbished full-metal MiG-1.44.
>>30074490
Its going into production with that laughable engine.
In addition to not actually being changed to have VLO intakes like all the little russians said it would.
Oh and most hilariously, even the Indians recognising it as DOA.
Nothing but a 4th-gen tier hack job.
>>30074628
It's going into LRIP with the engine that allows it to supercruise. Something F-35 won't ever be capable of.
>Indians
Poo in loos are just upset Russians aren't agreeing on more than 10% technology transfer. Which is explainable, knowing how shit poo in loo production is.
Stay mad, gook.
>>30074728
>Something F-35 won't ever be capable of.
Can already do what's basically a supercruise dash even though that capability was never planned to be part of the design.
>>30074810
>supercruise dash
>>30074728
>Something F-35 won't ever be capable of.
They're already developing a new engine for the F-35 that will enable supercruise.
>>30057731
>Depends on the type, but they have parity with 4th Gen fighters in the strictest tactical sense. Logistically and strategically, most Western forces have the edge. And don't forget, their single most common airframe is the J-7, which is really just a somewhat updated copy of a MiG-21 Fishbed.
Does the Japanese airforce, by itself, have that edge?
It appears that Japan's airfleet consists mostly of F-4s and F-15C level fighters, that do not have capability to fire active radar missiles, expect for 30-40 or so F-15J Kai that were upgraded with that capability in mind. And their F-2s only seem to be really useful for anti-shipping.
Compared to China's 4th gen airfleet of 400 J-10 + 400 Flankers (and a couply of hundred late model J-8s), that most have that capability.
>>30074837
Sure, whatever.
>>30071246
Kek
I consider the F-111 an unintentional side effect of trying to make a completely different plane.
It's like crackling made from a wild boar, the main product will be utterly disastrous, but it'll be at least passable.
>>30071156
We need a fast strike bomber that can effectively deter aggressors.
Multiroles aren't the best at that.
>>30074362
AFAIK it was more a stop gap than a replacement, that and our retarded government would try to run then as AS fighters, completely disregarding bomb truck duties.
>>30074873
>We need a fast strike bomber that can effectively deter aggressors.
That's really a job for the Navy at this point. You're buying 12 high-tech submarines. It shouldn't be a problem.
>>30057146
Which is your Planefu?
>>30074854
China has the strongest airforce with most 4th gen platorms in asia. This has been a fact since at least 2014.
>>30074855
Yep.
>>30074955
Are they gonna turn all those J-7s into drones? Is that possible? Just wondering what purpose they serve.
>>30074970
No, a lot of them are for border defense and point defense.
But there should be at least 100+ J-6 and J-7 drones sighted, as of scramble.nl.
Some drones are target drones, but a lot of them actually carry bombs and stuff.
>>30074970
>Just wondering what purpose they serve.
Most likely, they would be used as a light attack aircraft. It's useless against modern fighters but it can still do strafing runs, drop bombs, etc.
>>30074990
pits removed as well.
>>30075004
Damn these things remind me of the mass production evas. spooks af.
>>30074995
Q-5 Fantans should still do that job.
>>30074990
About the J-6s... It seems they are actually for that UAV conversion job, while the J-7s mostly serve on, or turned into target drones.
Guess that the J-6/MiG-19 was deemed more manoeuverable for combat UAV duties than the MiG-21s, that arent even known for being especially agile.
>B-6
>Around 200 retired J-6/Mig-19 fighters are thought to have been converted to UAVs as B-6 (J-6W?) drones. The aircraft had the wing-root 30mm guns, ejection seat and other life support systems removed. New remote flight control, navigational (GPS?) and fire control systems including datalink were installed. They are believed to have been stationed in Southeast China facing Taiwan (S/N 794xx). Some B-6s are seen carrying two 250kg bombs under the wings, suggesting their role as low-cost ground attack UCAVs, or as cruise missiles or decoys to probe, disrupt even suppress enemy air defence systems. Therefore the guidance system might include passive radar homing for anti-radiation missions. It was rumored that a further upgraded variant has been developed with the cockpit completely removed. Depending on the cost, B-6 could be modified to fly additional missions including ELINT, ECM and laying naval mines.
http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/p/uav.html
>>30074955
Taiwan's fighters in comparisson.
>>30075030
You rang?
>>30074937
Yeah, in about 10 years.
Plus, at any given time only one sub will be in each region.
>>30074728
Kek, why the fuck do you think I'm Chinese?
Didn't actually refute anything, by the way.
>>30074955
>J-10 regiments only 24 planes
wut.
J-10 and other 'light/low' tier fighters have 28 planes per regiment.
>>30062564
>>30062846
>>30063996
>>30065587
>>30065855
>>30069720
Dude. Dude...Dude.
You drank way too much of Sprey's koolaid. Take a breath, calm yourself. Next, what you need to do is go through any sources you find very carefully. Ask yourself, is the article old? Was there any follow up to the problem? What does the result really mean? What are the implications? Look at your own link. It's three years old, and the latest info has fighter pilots actually liking how the F-35 handles. This implies it either meets or exceeds the required specs, since they would not be fond of a downgrade. Next, you didn't take into consideration the implications of the lowered spec requirement either; just because it's lowered, doesn't mean the end result will actually be lower.
In the end of the day, we don't get all the pieces of the puzzle, and it'll all boil down to how it really does out there in the real world. Basically, we gotta wait and see. But so far?
The latest info on the F-35 is not looking so grim.
>>30074873
>It's like crackling made from a wild boar,
im hungry.
>>30074087
nice, senpai
>>30057756
>Is it possible to hot rod an F-4 airframe with modern engines and avionics to make a 3.75 gen fighter?
Okay. This entire thread is bait....
Arguably 3.75 gen F-4's already exist. Just take a look on how extensively some countries modernized their Phantoms.
>>30074829
>>30074855
Spreyfag detected.
>>30074728
>It's going into LRIP with the engine that allows it to supercruise.
We shall see )))
>>30074955
air force superiority is never measured in numbers .
superiority of electronics is king.
You could have four times that many planes, it would be as effective as having their weight in raw steel.
One american aircraft carrier could take down all that implying theres no nukes involved.
No chinese plane missile will ever have a lock on american targets, much less a hit.
They also would never get close enough for machine gun range,
so that's that
>>30074455
>now that the engines are covered.
they were always covered. they just painted the covers now.
>>30063005
He says he's not OP.
>>30060441
This criticism is ancient and is certainly not evidence of fishing the numbers.
>>30065867
>but we need aircraft that aren't sitting ducks and can reliably drop bombs on the other side of the continent.
So the F-35. Also
>Su-24
> not a sitting duck
Turkey says hello.
>>30079047
The F-35 has a markedly inferior range and munitions capacity.
It serves much better as a short range superiority fighter in our air force.
24 != 34
>>30065958
>A strategic bomber requires too much resources and support, whilst long range strike bombers are capable of minor force projection and fantastic area denial against invading forces.
No just no. They have never been used for these things nor do they excel at them. Moreover these planes would be sitting ducks against enemy air power. How could you possibly bring them to bare effectively. Nor could they defend your shores against enemy bombing. You need something that did both. You need a multi-role, and preferably a 5th gen one.
>>30066191
This, how does he expect to operate the F-111 in a hostile environment without any kind of escort? It's madness.
>>30079117
Read the thread.
Dedicated strike bombers, escorted by EW and AS.
>>30074873
How the hell is a strike bomber supposed to deter aggressors.
>agressor1: we will invade
>agressor2: but they have bombers and we have multi-roles
>agressor1: so what they have no air to air?
>agressor2: I suppose so.
>agressor1: we will invade
Multi-roles are literally the only kind of Aircraft that have the effect you're looking for.
>>30075103
I wonder if the show's creators did this on purpose.
>>30079088
As opposed to what the Su-34 and F-111. As if you'll be able to accomplish anything with those either. They have no stealth of AtoA and would be DOA at the battle space.
>>30079178
You are too poor for dedicated EW and AS.
>>30079292
>Su-34
haha, implying supolev fabrications keeps on being relevant.
France cannot compete in this war you little pleb even i know that
>>30057146
are airforces effective or not? if so when and when not?
>>30079416
Arguably a modern war cannot be won without airpower. I'd have to agree. Once a party has achieved air superiority, they can interdict their opponent's troop movements almost at will. This means the enemy can't move, which means they are maneuvered on and die.
The Army and Air Force have butted heads over this- the Army wants the Air Force to focus on killing the troops that are in contact, whereas the Air Force wants to prevent the enemy from being able to get into that contact in the first place. Not to mention that troops in transit are far more vulnerable than on the front lines.
>>30079444
can you render air power obsolete though the use of dense jungle, dense city's with close quarters fighting or other such environmental factors?
Vietnam the blitz failure to render the British to give up and insurgency come to mind.
>>30079491
>can you render air power obsolete though the use of dense jungle,
does vietnam exist?
think about it, they were so fucking concerned about it they were trying to take out the whole fucking jungle
