ITT:
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Post discontinued aircraft that still wouldn't be obsolete
Good for COIN air support, in a similar way to the Tucano or that prop plane the Rhodies strapped rocket pods to.
![ov-10_hero_med_01_1280x436[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wUCdnyc.jpg "ov-10_hero_med_01_1280x436[1].jpg")
US Military took NASA's OV-10s and is using them to fight ISIS.
This or the A-12
So true, the F-111 would still be a very capable aircraft today.
Even as an EF-111, it out performed the obsolete NAVY EA-6 counterpart in every possible aspect.
It came down to budget cuts, and the NAVYs interpretation of operational cost.
The Airforce calculated fuel, oil, maintenance, future upgrades, airframe life extension mods, etc. And the Navy just calculated fuel burn.
Both presented the projected operational cost of their aircraft over the next 10 years. Surprise, surprise, the navy won.
>>30592440
>EF-111
One hell of a big mistake losing those birds.
>>30592178
Well, the A-12 was a prototype to the SR-71, it was lighter but that was really the only thing going for it.
Moderns would smoke it.
>>30592142
apparently because it has the ability to both find and engage targets at the same time, it is having a pretty good sortie rate.
>>30592440
>>30592572
There was a big shitfight in Ausfailia over loosing them, because the defense minister their capability was surpassed,
by the F35 XD
>>30592721
But it is.
>>30592721
What a shame
>>30592988
>T-34s
>>30592988
>bunch of trash T-34s and baseline T-72s
>HELP!
hatobabbies go home
>>30592988
I love how often this is posted
>15 point tanks with 30% acc
>command tank could just reverse out and wait for autocannons and [spoiler]OVERPOWERED[/spoiler] nato 60 point tanks to crush them
>risks top-tier bomber
>doesn't even kill most of them
>>30593020
panic makes you do stupid things
>>30592646
First, the A-12 was not a prototype for the SR. Secondly, I don't understand your claim that
>moderns could smoke it
since, as it sits in museums, it is still the fastest plane on the planet.
>>30593794
Weren't they developed separately? Like the SR used a lot of the technology from the A-12 but it was a different plane.
Wouldn't even need a sensor pod, just need an update to the nose optics.
A bit early, but this beautiful thing is due to retire in 2018 with duties taken over by Typhoon and F35.
IIRC through its entire career it has been deployed on operations somewhere with the RAF.
I don't think NATO has been better served by any other strike aircraft.
>>30592142
Looked into this. Thanks for posting! It appears that common sense still has a pulse in the money-driven Pentagon.
The author of this is 1000%_mad.gif, but he is right.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ov-10-broncos-were-sent-to-fight-isis-and-they-kicked-a-1764407068
"Although this is exciting news for the OV-10, it is also a reminder of just how inept the Pentagon has been when it comes to providing sustainable, effective and affordable air support over the last 15 years.
Instead of providing light support aircraft loaded with technology like the OV-10 Bronco, we spent billions fighting men in mud huts carrying rusty AK-47s with F-16s and F-15s costing tens of thousands an hour to operate. We literally flew the wings off our fighter fleet in the process.
Instead we could and should have procured and deployed hundreds of these cost effective light attack and surveillance aircraft and trained Iraqis and the Afghans how to use them in the process. In doing so, we could have finally exited both conflicts with a simple, yet deadly air support and surveillance aircraft fleet in place so that these countries could fight their own wars."
>>30592721
Their airframes were degrading and couldn't be maintained otherwise I'm sure we would of kept them.
If only the US still produced them, maybe even a modernized design.
>>30593020
But it did destroy most of them. There were two lines of armor, the second was larger by far.
>>30592721
So anon, are you saying i can carpet bomb filthy mudslide Indonesians from my F-111C?
WHAT GAME IS IT
>>30593990
I wonder how come the Pig airframes were degrading when the likes of the B52 can still fly, despite being older?
>>30593854
A-12 was the "original" design developed for the CIA. The SR-71 was a variant developed from the A-12.
>>30594068
Airframe stress.
A-10s are pulling some pretty good G's while doing its sillyness that close to the ground, while B-52's just loiter around.
>>30594093
This, that's why 2 of the 3 British V bombers were retired leading up to the Falklands war, after SAMs really made the strategic bomber irrelevant, only the large wing area of the Vulcan could cope with low level missions
>>30594123
SAM's made conventional Strategic bombers irrelevant.
Not all are created equal.
>>30594123
>only the large wing area of the Vulcan could cope with low level missions
You want small wing area for low-level penetration
>>30594146
Size Matters
>>30594135
>ICBMs are still the primary means of Nuclear Weapons delivery
>>30594155
>>ICBMs are still the primary means of Nuclear Weapons delivery
Not true, there is many ways to skin a pig, and in a MAD situation all are used.
>>30594085
Forgive me, always have it backwards.
>>30593794
Wiki says mach 3.2
The x-15 clocks in at around mach 6.7 and the Lockheed YF-12 at mach 3.5
I'd paste links but they're detected as spam. A Google search will get you those results and more assuming I missed some
Maybe not most, but still not the fastest
>>30594244
>Rocket engine
>Destroys itself at that speed
Cheater, cheaaaaater!
>>30594045
Wargame Red Dragon
>>30594256
THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE
Buccanneer with newer electronics would be great as a naval strike aircraft.
>>30594305
what advantage does it have over tornados?
>>30594344
>carrier capable
>internal bomb-bay
>>30593794
>First, the A-12 was not a prototype for the SR. Secondly, I don't understand your claim that
In practice A-12 ended up being effectively just a prototype for SR-71 and it was retired almost immediately after SR-71 was available in reasonable numbers. Despite being "serial production" aircraft.
Pilot had work overload, SR-71 fixed that issue.
>>30593854
>Weren't they developed separately? Like the SR used a lot of the technology from the A-12 but it was a different plane.
SR-71 is A-12 with extended fusellage to accomodate second cockpit for recon systems officer and some extra equipment bays.
>>30594369
No.
The A-12 was developed for direct overflight of the USSR. Unfortunately, Gary Powers jacked that up. So, the A-12 never got to serve its intended use.
so, they tried to skirt the rule with the MD-12/21 with the drone. didn't work out for them. On the Overt side, they fielded the YF-12 interceptor. Testing proved it would work, but McNamara nixed it.
Kelly Johnson proposed a bomber version called the B-12, and later modiefied that design for a recon/strike role as an RS-12, which was renumbered to align with the B-70 as the RS-70. The airforce asked for an all recon proposal and it came back as the RS-71. so, the SR-71 was the last in a chain of events.
>>30594244
>X-15
>Mach 6.7
with a range of about 300 miles..
>>30594507
>so, they tried to skirt the rule with the MD-12/21 with the drone. didn't work out for them.
Wasn't that primarily aimed at / used for China?
>>30594546
it was intended for overflight of the USSR, but since the mach 3 separation was too unsafe, they changed gears and air launched the drones off of a B-52.
They later tried a few of these over China -- probably a 'real world' test before attempting such a novelty over the Soviets. didn't work out for them. They kept using Taiwanese volunteers flying U-2's.
>>30594507
>The A-12 was developed for direct overflight of the USSR. Unfortunately, Gary Powers jacked that up. So, the A-12 never got to serve its intended use.
That direct overflight role was already pretty suicidal when it entered service.
>so, they tried to skirt the rule with the MD-12/21 with the drone.
The point of drone carrier was using drones instead of manned aircraft. That didn't workout so well, so drones got safer B-52 as launch platform.
>didn't work out for them. On the Overt side, they fielded the YF-12 interceptor. Testing proved it would work, but McNamara nixed it.
YF-12 would have been stupid as fuck interceptor due to operational costs of Blackbirds. Acceptable cost as niche platform to gather high value recon, not so acceptable as interceptor. YF-12 was fine as weapons testing platform. McNamara axing YF-12 was one of most sensible things he did as secretary of defense. Serial production cost of F-12 was estimated to be between 15 and 18 million at the time F-4 Phantom II was 2 million or so per airframe.
In practice A-12 was a short lived prototype or pre-production series for SR-71 that remained in service for lot longer. The fact that A-12's retired just 5 years after it's introduction is a good indication what it actually ended up being despite it was intended to be something else.
>>30594661
Also don't forget that an A-12 took a very long time to ready for takeoff, so keeping it in that state would require an insane amount of money, time, and resources.
>>30592988
>mfw I was in that game
>mfw my Otomatic killed like 30+ T34s.
>mfw there were 3 Redfor players that thought spamming T34s was a good idea.
>>30593020
>>30593005
I was in that game. Those were absolute shitters. They had almost no AA, that was their last ditch against us. They fucked up in city hard and I pushed their shit in while the other 3 guys fucked them hard in the middle with an English armored and I think blue dragons and a burger deck.
>>30594155
nuclear triad, with the bombers first because they can be recalled.
at least thats how i remember it.
>>30593938
>>30593955
I feel that as long as the avionics and maybe engines are improved on the Tornado and Jaguar, they could be still viable combat aircraft
The Tornado is the best suited for ground attack, whereas the intended replacement(F35) is a poor balance between the air to air role (which we have the typhoon for) and the air to ground role (which the tornado can already do)
The Jaguar was an interesting plane, I read somewhere that it could take off and land on motorways, not sure why this would be useful though. I can see why they were retired though, as Tornados can carry much larger payload, fly faster, and have improved avionics
FUCK YOU SHE'S PERFECT
FUCK YOU PIERRE SPREY
>>30594032
Well technically they're not retired. Polish Air force still uses them. Mostly for air shows but officially they're still in service.
Retired right as they were reaching their potential. Tomcats forever baby!
As a wee kid, my father worked for General Dynamics, and we followed the F111 around the world. He did something with the avionics. Traveled around alot, never more than 12 months anywhere. Later on he worked with the f16. The f111 has always been one of my favorites.
>>30592988
Game? Is that from the wargame series?
>>30596181
Typhoon is fast catching up with the Tonka for ground attack capabilities and will soon surpass it.
She's a workhorse for sure but she's to old, to slow and doesn't have a great way of defending itself.
A Tonka GR4 will carry an ASRAAM or two for personal air defence. However once all weapons are integrated onto Typhoon by 2019, you will have a full ground attack capability as well as BVR in the form of Meteor and other A2A defence in the form of ASRAAM & AMRAAM. All of which could be done in one sortie.
>>30593843
Its still in service with the Kazakh Air Force and others.
>>30597671
Yes it is, the most recent rendition. Wargame: Red Dragon. Netherlands just came out as the most recent nation pack, Israel and something is next, and then a REDFOR pack with 3 nations after.
>>30597858
Finland is also coming.
As for a planes that are discontinued but still wouldnt be obselete, i'll start with the Nimrod MRA4. The only reason for its demise was a monetary one.
I have a feeling the F-117 will make a comeback.
Next is the Dassault Mirage 4000.
A capable 4th gen fighter that with upgrades, would've still been a good plane even today.
Next is the MiG-1.44/1.42 from the MFI program.
Its performance would've been good enough to replace all the early Flanker models, all the Foxbats (MiG-25) and all the early Foxhounds (MiG-31).
The project died because of the programs tectonicaly slow progress, budgetary issues and Sukhoi using its then new status as the undisputed number one fighter plane design bureau with the Su-30 selling like hotcakes and the public awing over the Su-37 and Su-47 to force a restart of the program in form of the PAK FA by heavy political lobbying.
>>30594146
The reason why the Vulcan was used in low level pen was because it had large, strong wings that didn't get affected much as the over V bombers
>>30596048
>>30596078
I WAS IN THAT GAME ALSO xDD !!
>>30597953
As drones maybe.
Lastly, the Myasishchev M-4/3M. With upgrades and able to carry the latest in cruise missiles (KH-55SM or KH-101/102) it would've been nearly as good as the Tu-95.
>>30597047
>Retired right as they were falling apart and a nightmare in hours and costs to maintain
FTFY
>>30597931
Isn't that a modified Comet which first flew in 1949?
>>30598198
Yeah, it is a very heavily upgraded MRA2 which derived from the Comet. Not that the age of the aircraft matters much if it is practicaly rebuilt from scratch. The MRA4 could've easily served all the way deep into the 2040's.
With the right upgrades, it could have been the UK's B-52 or Bear equivilent.
>tfw we'll never hear the Vulcan howling over ISIS while sending dozens of Brimstones and Paveways out at once
Herro
>>30592079
They can probably carry more ordnance than Tucano, no?
>>30597960
It's like a lady F-15.
>>30597960
>french
>4th gen
>good plane even today
>>30598599
As far as i am aware, nothing her size has anything like her performance. (see video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljO1DRTEw-c
Picture is a Vulcan symbolically shitting flares on a Russian carrier while blasting it with jamming.
>>30594032
Way too vulnerable to modern manpads, a ton have been lost in syrian use in the civil war
>>30592440
The EF-111 had about 1/2 of the total transmission power of the EA-6 because even though it used the same AN/ALQ-99 suite, it had to use generators powered off the engines, and there was only so much accessory drive space available. The EA-6 controlled the external pods as well, and those used their own airflow-driven turbine generators for their transmitters.
Though a good plane, the EF-111 had a hell of a maintenance load. All the Aarvark family did. On extended missions F-111s tended to have systems failures (air data, INS, etc) that the A-6 family didn't suffer as heavily from (the INS usually failed immediately, LOL).
>>30599428
And shifting to just Growlers has further simplified Navy logistics now.
>>30599428
A EF-111/F-117 pilot friend wrote this book that's got some cool details. He had spent a few weeks as an exchange pilot with the Navy on their prowlers, and was convinced that the EF-111 was a better performing platform.
Pic 1/2
>>30600174
Pic 2/2
still too soon?
>>30598198
I thought this was a Nimrod.
>>30592050
>>30597953
Still being flown in the desert today.
>>30600174
>>30600189
Interesting read
Thanks
>>30593843
Russia keeps an inventory of cold war jets
i'm sure these are in there somewhere
>>30598060
Pic related
>>30597953
I recall there being reports of some of them being pulled out of mothball at Tonopah and flying again
3 words
>variable
>incidence
>wing
>>30603486
All were scrapped in the 90s together with Su-17s. Sad story, MiG-27K was based as fuck.
>>30600248
CF-105, we hardly knew ye
Drakenposting bestposting
>>30592646
>Moderns would smoke it.
no, not a single other manned jet can cruise at 2,200mph continuously.
modern jets are faster to 1500 mph but don't have the top end of a sr71
>>30604041
Did we just become best friends?
>>30604071
>continuously
We can all see how "continuously" this piece of shit could cruise with its 40% crash rate.
>>30597953
drone maybe.
definitely not man'd as they are outdated.
>>30598938
>cat pic.jpeg
>implying
>4chan
>>30600375
Don't the Marines like have a bunch of those?
>>30597953
They'll pull them out come next big war
>>30604161
Uh it's a PNG, thank you.
>>30596286
>F-20
Fucking F-16 bullshit really revealed the level of corruption in the government. Up until that point the idea was to keep frontline aircraft out of the hands of all our non-white friends across the world, and then out of nowhere Northrop gets kicked in the teeth by the Reagan administration to support the Pakistanis.
>>30592440
F-111B could barely fly from a carrier
>>30594068
they regularly replace B52 parts
>>30596286
But Sprey hated the F-16 and loved the F-5 and other radarless shits.
>>30604508
>Fucking F-16 bullshit really revealed the level of corruption in the government.
>>30592721
F-35 XD must be the new shitpost variant
>>30594244
>Comparing a rocket powered aircraft that could not takeoff on its own and only lasted minutes, to an air breathing jet that could sustain it's speed for hours.
>Hurr durr things have gone faster
Yea and the space shuttle has them all beat, without even using it's engines!!
>>30594369
The A-12 was technically it's own aircraft, It was never meant to be a prototype to the SR. The YF-12 was the prototype for the two.
>>30594507
This guy gets it
>>30604508
Reagan didn't help, but you can mostly blame Carter.
>>30604619
F-20 had a radar. In fact, it could launch sparrows while the F-16 lacked the ability at the time.
>>30605793
The F-20 wasn't what the Air Force wanted or needed. They needed a multi-role that was cheaper than the F-15 that could be bought in sufficient numbers to have secondary/Air Guard squadrons equipped with a modern aircraft, instead of hand-me-downs.
And when you compare them the F-20 didn't come close in capability.
>>30605872
F-20 was meant for export, as an F-5 replacement.
>>30605926
But then you have foreign nations with the same choice, a dogfighter that can't multi-role well, or a multi-role that can also dogfight at the top tier. The F-16 was a no-brainer.
>>30597977
Is that a fucking propeller on the tail?
>>30605641
>The A-12 was technically it's own aircraft, It was never meant to be a prototype to the SR.
There are quite often difference between what is planned and what actually happens. _In practice_ it ended up being prototype for SR-71.
>The YF-12 was the prototype for the two.
Nope. YF-12 was further development of A-12. Just looking at fucking serial numbers of aircraft and dates of first flight of each type makes it obvious.
A-12, YF-12 and M-21 share their serial number sequence. Starting from 60-6924 and ending at 60-6941. YF-12's had serial numbers 60-6934, 60-6935 and 60-6936.
>>30592178
>>30593794
>>30604071
>SR-71
Are you fucking serious? What purpose would it have in the modern world?
>muh spy plane
It would get shot down by modern missiles
>>30605970
And prior to Reagan, the F-16 was not available for export. The F-20 was available for years, but Carter blocked sales because he wanted us to get out of the whole "arming the free world" business. The F-20 did have some advantages over the early F-16s, but the government steered potential customers away because the more F-16s sold, the cheaper the air force's procurement costs would be.
>>30604071
You do realize that you don't need to be going the same speed as the target to intercept it right? You just detect it out at a distance - something that's going to be fairly easy given that it's flying at 100,000ft - and then sortie interceptors to the areas it's heading towards. Sure, the interceptors might be slower, but their missiles aren't.
Why do you think we never bothered flying them over anything but the fringes of the USSR? We knew they'd get downed eventually if we tried overflights of more heavily defended areas. IIRC, even with the flights over Hanoi, an SR-71 came back with SA-2 shrapnel in the tail.
>>30605970
>But then you have foreign nations with the same choice, a dogfighter that can't multi-role well, or a multi-role that can also dogfight at the top tier. The F-16 was a no-brainer.
>The F-16 was a no-brainer.
Yeah because arming other nations (not close allies, anyone who argues that Pakistan is our friend is an idiot) with the same aircraft we use isn't a retarded idea at all.
>>30608850
>Implying that just because they have the same airframe doesn't mean we still don't have superior support, training, and numbers
>>30608871
>missing the point entirely
NASA is tracking it in orbit as we speak.
>>30598060
Would that have been superior to the Su-47?
>>30600248
I wish Canada would drop the f35 for an updated arrow.
These were fucking badass in Godzilla 1985!
But don t forgot the real sea son of bitch
Really fear
>>30592050
The Super Tomcat
What, exactly, makes many of these older jet planes outdated? Their replacements often hold the same technologies and extremely similar performance (and appearance).
And my understanding is that many of the systems that make modern aircraft better are often just internal things like radar and computer systems.
>>30609540
The companies that make them have new jets to sell, and the government has budgeted money to spend.
Thats the funny thing about budgets. If you say "these planes are fine, we'll save the money for something else" someone is going to decide you don't need as much money next year.
>>30609540
well if you take an old jet that has a top speed of 1000mph vs a new jet with a top speed of 1000mph, the new one will accelerate to that speed faster
>>30609540
>What, exactly, makes many of these older jet planes outdated?
Technology.
>Their replacements often hold the same technologies and extremely similar performance (and appearance).
While many aspects of performance like top speed and service ceiling have remained essentially same since late 50's, many not so obvious performance aspect like maneuveribility have changed a lot.
>And my understanding is that many of the systems that make modern aircraft better are often just internal things like radar and computer systems.
There are lot more in combat aircraft that have changed than just radar and computers. Materials, engines, aerodynamics, control systems...
>>30609579
>well if you take an old jet that has a top speed of 1000mph vs a new jet with a top speed of 1000mph, the new one will accelerate to that speed faster
More likely new one will be actually able to maneuver at that speed and even more importantly it can cruise lot longer at 600mph.
The reason why lot of 60's and 70's designs posted here were retired earlier than planned was end of Cold War and budget cuts that came with it. Most air forces started to streamline their logistics.
>>30609540
Sensors, Stealth, and comms are the big ones. 5th Gen is a completely new paradigm, the Sensor-Shooter, to 4th's Energy-Maneuver. Anybody who says otherwise is retarded.
It's also extremely important to remember that a fighter is like a Formula 1 or NASCAR racer - extremely intricate vehicles that require constant, extensive maintenance work to keep running and see stresses that most aircraft do not. Current US and Allied 4th Gens are hitting the limits of maintainability. And it must be noted that unlike 4th Gen aircraft, the F-35 is designed from the ground up to be modular and easy to maintain.
>>30609569
This. I worked at a company where if you didn't use your allotted budget, it was cut the next year.
This led to wasteful spending, but what else could you do? Next year you'd have to come crawling and begging to the technical department to get more money.
These pen pushing bureaucrats don't understand that budgets are dynamic and change, yet they insist they should only get smaller every year, so they can cash in their bonus.
Yes, I'm mad.
>>30597977
what the fuck is that?
>>30610156
Ekranoplan.
Ground effect aircraft.
>>30606108
Turboprop.
>>30606108
for A-90 single nk-12m needed for cruise and it's max take of weight 140t, while T-95 uses 4 of them and its max take of weight is 188t.
>>30610643
It still needed two nose engines for take-off.
>>30598814
Way fucking more.
>>30598888
>It's like a lady F-15.
>>30599038
Whatever you fucking bong -- the B-52 can do that easily.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=182AepOJjMs
>>30592050
Is this a plausible aircraft?
>>30609507
Attack super tomcat 21 confirmed for best naval fighter.
Apparently they considered giving it F119s which would have given it mach 2+ supercruise.
>>30611341
Honestly fuck Cheney for being a hornet fanboy.
The entire fleet is without a real interceptor now.
>>30611533
>Implying Interceptor isn't a dead role
>Implying it would've been worth it to keep the hangar queens flying
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/you-thought-cooking-your-turkey-was-tough-try-maintain-1664041009
>>30611570
>Implying interceptor is a dead role
It is not.
>>30611570
>Does Russia still have bombers?
>Yes.
>So then do we need a way to shoot them down if they ever tried to sink a carrier?
>No.
>Why?
>Because it's 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>30611597
The other big problem is that the Navy no longer has the A-6 Intruder serving the tanker role.
A-6 + F-14 was the perfect set-up. You had the F-14 armed with Phoenix to intercept any potential threat against the carriers and you had the A-6 around to extend the range of the Tomcat. Now there is no real interceptor and no real tanker. The odds of stopping an incoming bomber group in time is much lower now.
>>30611570
> Implying a bomb truck with supercruise and twice the endurance of a super hornet wouldn't be useful
>>30611613
well the fact that any anti aircraft system worth shit can see a bomber from a few hundred miles away not only that but the fact that our current fighters can detect them from a minimum of 40 miles and hit them from beyond visual range with radar guided missiles there is no reason to get that close that fast anymore.
>>30611682
>The odds of stopping an incoming bomber group in time is much lower now.
Practically impossible, since they dont exist anymore.
>>30611682
What they really should have done is replace the legacy hornet with the super hornet and replace the Tomcat with one of the Advanced Super Duper Tomcat derivatives. At least that way the Tomcat could use the buddy fuel system of the super hornet
>>30611597
>>30611613
>>30611702
The '70s called, they want their doctrine back.
>>30611724
It's not enough to shoot down the bombers. You have to shoot them BEFORE they get a chance to launch their payload. Otherwise, it is game over for everybody on-board the carrier.
The Hornets are much slower and shorter ranged than the Tomcat. And they lack the Phoenix missile system as well. This makes it much less likely that they would be able to actually shoot down the bomber group in time.
>>30611823
>USA is the only country in the world, American doctrine is the only doctrine in the world
Oh, right. This is /k.
>>30611855
Zero credible threat of fixed wing anti carrier operations.
No hostile nation has either the inventory of hypersonics or airframes to bring them to battle in large enough numbers.
You have to remember the Soviet Doctrine relied on a combined arms attack,a full spectrum sub-surface(Alfas,Oscars),Air(Backfires) and Various surface vessel type attack and oh they would be lobbing nukes.
>>30611909
>Implying Russian doctrine has ever defeated Western in any conflict
>INB4 Monkey models/doesn't count because Vietnamese/Serb/Arab/etc.,
>>30598888
Quads for truth
>>30598164
That aircraft didn't go very far in the Soviet air forces because it lacked intercontinental range. If you gave it turbofans, aerial refueling, and larger/more fuel tanks, it would have been a viable aircraft.
And before you say "attack carrier task forces," Tu-22M
This Phabulus Phucker right here
>range
check
>payload
check
>speed and low-altitude stability
>check
>lots of airframes laying around
check
>able to take on upgrades and new weapons
Turkey does more than grow good tobacco
This would still be good for a tactical strike/interdictor.
The Saudis, deep down, are afraid of Iran's F-4s, because they can theoretically scoot across the Gulf real fast and low, bomb truck some refineries and tank farms, and scoot back before the RSAF can scramble their F-15s.
>>30600375
These things are death traps dude they are so unreliable
Every plane the usa retired over the last 30 years would still be in service in Russia.
>>30598888
>*looks at nose section and canopy*
Mein Gott
>>30611992
>Implying American doctrine has ever met Soviet in any war, ever
Lol.
>I-inbeefoo...
Just because you put "inb4" in front of it doesn't make it any less of a fair point. The west has mostly encountered outdated Soviet equipment and monkey models operated by poorly trained crews. The last time the west met actual contemporary Soviet equipment in combat IAF got slaughtered by SA-6.
>Vietnamese
How did it feel losing 10000 aircraft and a war? Does it still hurt?
>>30613735
Fatnik dementia.
daily reminder that this pilot rekt two Eagles all by himself
twice
>>30615298
>Lol.
Just because you don't want it to have happened doesn't make it not true. Soviet Doctrine and equipment were inseparable.
>Just because you put "inb4" in front of it doesn't make it any less of a fair point. The west has mostly encountered outdated Soviet equipment and monkey models operated by poorly trained crews. The last time the west met actual contemporary Soviet equipment in combat IAF got slaughtered by SA-6.
lol.
>How did it feel losing 10000 aircraft and a war? Does it still hurt?
>Implying it was a military loss and not a political withdrawal
>>30604071
It's already been quoted above showing others that are
>>30615873
Daily reminder he was a vietnam vet on F-8s and had been a top gun instructor for years.
Remember kids the F-14A which is heavier, slower and less powerful than the F-15A had the advantage because pilot skill makes up for a lot of defficiencies.
>>30617775
Just because you want it to have happened doesn't make it true.
>lol.
That's what Arab SA-6 operators thought watching another F-4 getting BTFO from the sky.
>>30618806
Israel fucked up against Soviet-made IADS once.
Then came back and absolutely rekt it.
>>30597953
reminds me of my old laptop
>>30618933
By the time they came back they operated F-15 and F-16, while Arab operated the same old SA-6 despite that in the USSR the whole new generation of SAM systems was introduced. Which is why I specifically pointed out "contemporary" part. When Soviet MiG-25 were doing reconnaissance missions over Sinai IAF pants were turning brown.
>>30611992
Funny how you Americans claim that "muh monkey models" doesn't count as an argument when we're talking about Russian/Soviet equipment, but the moment someone posts a picture of a burning Iraqi Abrams, suddenly this is valid argument again.
>>30619049
>Implying it's not the Vatniks claiming it doesn't count because "muh monkey model"
>>30619061
Doesn't change the fact you're a bunch of hypocrites. Either "muh monkey models" is a valid argument, or it is not. You can't pick and choose just because "muh unkillable abrams" was knocked in Iraq by a bunch of sandniggers with molotovs and outdated weapons.
>>30611724
Except the F-18 can't detect the enemy as early from as far away as the F-14, and it can't track as many targets as the F-14.
>>30619075
The fuck are you on about, idiot?
>>30597953
Long live the F 117
>>30619119
>Reading comprehension
>>30619141
You have none.
I'm asking what, exactly, is your point? The Abrams (which has never been built as a Monkey Model) is not suited to guerilla/COIN warfare. No MBT is. So how is that relevant to the discussion at hand except to try to deflect the conversation away from Soviet inferiority?
>>30619127
Why? The F-35 has better internal capability AND it isn't threat-blind, while having better stealth.
>>30619127
It literally does nothing that can't be done better with the F-35 or F-22.
>>30619167
Every time someone posts a picture of a killed Iraqi Abrams, a bunch of ameriboos will immediately jump in a claim that it doesn't count, because it was an export Abrams built without DU armour and crewed by inept Iraqis. These same amreiboos will also say that claiming that shitty export T-72s that the Iraqi's used in the Gulf War, that had hand-cranked turrets along with other issues, and were crewed by incompetent Iraqi's, is not a valid argument to defend the T-72 overall.
In other words, "muh monkey model" is only a valid argument if it refers to American equipment in the eyes of ameriboos on /k/. You fucking illiterate retard.
>>30619231
The fuck would DU armor do against a molotov in the engine, you fucking tard? I've said nothing about that, but here you go, trying to compare asymmetrical combat losses to conventional tank-on-tank engagements.
>>30618260
A fun story about F-15 vs F-14. When those were demonstrated to Iranians, both had to be fueled according to standard. F-15 flew first. F-14 was on runway engines idle with afterburner on while F-15 did it's demonstration flight to Iranians, that made F-14 way lighter for it's own demostration flight.
>>30619457
The Shaw also just liked the way it looked.
>>30615873
what exercise was that from?
>>30619333
>Molotov in engine
>Hurr what is DU
>>30619482
>Shaw
>That guy going on about F-4 vs SA-6 decades ago being a valid measure for performance of modern aircraft vs modern SAMs
>Everything about carriers, bombers, and the F-14
This thread is giving me brain damage.
>>30620101
>>Molotov in engine
>>Hurr what is DU
An applique armor kit added to the frontal aspect of the M1 to boost resistance to KE penetrators made of non-radioactive uranium byproduct of nuclear power/weapon refinement that extracts the useful unstable radioactive isotopes.
As in, it does absolutely jack shit to protect against non-conventional attack vectors you fucking mongoloid.
>>30609079
There's a guy in Edmonton trying to do just that. Pic related-the "CF-XX Super Arrow". Apparently he's got a lot of interest, all the way up the chain. The odds are just stacked against him.
>>30620670
>The odds are just stacked against him.
Because it's a retarded idea from every perspective.
>>30620670
If they restructure the YF-23s weapon bays for greater rigidity, it could be pretty gud
>>30620797
>Buy Super Bugs as an interim solution
>Actually bother to throw money at building up your aviation industry again
>Base none of it in Quebec, since they're a bunch of corrupt turboniggers who can't even handle one fucking shitty aircraft company without yearly Federal bailouts
>Design and build your own aircraft tailored to your needs
It's an expensive idea, but not necessarily a bad one.
>>30620670
>Apparently he's got a lot of interest, all the way up the chain.
Yeah, just like Mike Sparks
>>30621278
How much do you think it costs to design a new up to date fighter aircraft? I want to say that the Rafale costed around $62.7 billion to design. The Canada order of the F-35 is around $16 billion. I think that I have started to highlight why most of the time native fighter programs are just bad ideas, but there is more.
How are you going to keep that aircraft company in business? Your air force is nowhere near the size to keep it going. If making fighters is its main thing how are your export partners? Do not even think about trying to support it with making airliners with the worlds largest exporters of airliners being your southern neighbor.
>>30619333
>Missing the point
>Focusing on two out of context points instead
Are you literally autistic?
>>30622247
I don't see how it's irrelevant, DU has nothing to do with the M1 surviving molotovs, which the prior posters claims made Iraqi versions "monkey models."
>>30621324
Trudeau would actually probably listen to this guy because thats how retarded he is
>>30607503
It's because it would be an act of war to invade their airspace
>>30620107
Mother fucker. I am in a P3 squadron right now. the P8 can't come soon enough. No more fuckin props man.
>>30592050
Any aircraft post 1930? Because even shit like a P-51 could do 'decent' CAS for what they are, especially if you could mount a fire and forget bomb/missile on them.
People seem to forget that MOST of the world still lacks ANY remotely capable airforce. The Rhodesians were using shitty ass WW2 tier planes in the 80s for fucks sake and doing a good job.
Obsolete as a term only matters when you are facing a similar tech opponent. Otherwise, you could still drive around in Shermans in Central Africa and be an effective god.
>>30623347
>It's because it would be an act of war to invade their airspace
Because that clearly stopped us with all the overflights we did through the 50's, right?
>>30623763
P8 currently is a shittier platform systems and capabilities wise. Air Frame it is better but it will be a couple years until it can truly replace the gap the P-3 filled around the world.
![latest[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/aIE7sYK.jpg "latest[1].jpg")
>>30620670
>>30624317
Can you elaborate on this because the P-8 seems to be selling like hot-cakes right now. India, Japan, the USN, Australia, Great Britain, are all buying this aircraft. What is wrong with it?
>>30624338
New technology that isn't truly mature yet and mostly still under warranty. Pretty much it lacks capabilties the P-3 had and some of the replacement tech (such as rotary sonobouy launcher) still has teething issues. As aircrew and maintenance adapt to the new platform and the air frame recieves tweeks and updates it will be a greater overall platform overall.
So pretty much like normal it'll have it's couple years of small issues not found in small scale testing and then it'll trully establish itself as a good replacement. It's greatest asset to the fleet is it's RORO capability than anything else really.
>>30623763
This guy hates P-3's as a mech because Prop/Engine changes are absolutely retarded when compared to other platforms and assets comparatively.
>>30624337
Funny enough, his "final render" is Ace Combat as fuck.
>>30611570
>Linking to shit tier foxtrotalpha
Opinion discarded
>>30618260
My dad was an F-14 pilot for the longest time and that's pretty true. The F-14 was a hard plane to fly well in a dogfight, but in capable hands was unstoppable.
>>30624445
Pff that looks pathetic.
>>30613410
The biggest issue with the F-4 was its godawful radar and that's easily rectifiable with modern tech. However, it came about before we really had the capacity for figuring out RCS and as such would be easy pickings for modern air defenses.
>>30605926
The nations that were operating F-5s couldn't stomach the F-20's price tag. The only one able to pony up was Taiwan but the US government cock-blocked them because China threatened to quit making Happy Meal toys or some shit.
>>30624580
Looks pretty cool, actually. The design isn't just his own. He had several aerospace engineers help him.
>>30620107
NZ is still flying them until at least 2025
>>30624501
They're great for historical review and interviews with aviators and crew, fuck off with the universal hate.
>>30625105
>NZ is still flying them until at least 2025
NZ isn't only country flying those at least to 2025.
>>30624338
wait what? why would japan buy the p-8 while they have the option of buying the p-1 which is a domestic product...and seems to be the better plane? i think one of your sources fucked up a bit
>>30624422
Every thing is absolutely retarded when compared to other platforms. I am so glad I won't ever touch one again after this deployment.
>>30623851
Not every, since very old air superiority fighters exist like some old Mig-21 variants, but most of them - absolutely, with proper maintainance and command.
>>30597977
But this is a ship!
>>30620230
So you googled DU.
Still,
>Molotov in engine
>>30631546
Nope, from memory. And you're fucking stupid if you think armor specifically intended for tank to tank combat can do anything about attacks it was never intended to deal with. Just like you wouldn't put an MRAP with a .50 up against tanks, an M1 wasn't designed for that kind of warfare.
Which gets back to the truth: you're trying to compare US equipment in conflicts where the weapons are ill-suited to the opposing force to situations where Russian equipment got BTFO at the combat roles they were designed for.
>>30592050
Could the F-111B have been successful as a land-based interceptor?
A plane with 800 nmi combat radius flying around carrying 6 phoenix missiles doesn't sound like a bad deal.
>>30631898
Okay, you're missing my point.
Molotovs in the engine are a great way to kill tanks if you live in 1935.
I was thinking of buying a truck to protect my family and I was wondering what you guys would suggest
>>30632281
Did something change the laws of physics that prevent a fire in the engine bay from killing it?
>>30632677
eh, the Abrams has a jet turbine engine
i don't know how much extra external heat it can take before it malfunctions
gasoline aside, there's also the possibility the exhaust is powerful enough to blow out an external fire as well
question is about the same as "if you set an Apache on fire will it crash?"
>>30598814
Shit, man. A Skyraider can probably attach 6 Tucanos to its wings.
>>30632771
But still missing the original point, that we don't really sell anybody monkey models - or use it as an excuse when something it wasn't designed to defend against takes it out, while Russians foam at the mouth to claim that everything but the design and doctrine are at fault when their designs get owned in the threat environment they were meant to fight in.
