airplane/ jet thread
So, we /k/ now?
>>956173
>Needing to land on a carrier
>Can't even touch down in the middle of the ocean, rendezvous with a nukesub to refuel & rearm, and go sortie again
There are probably practical reasons why this program flopped, but still...
>>956211
>You will never be the captain of a P-6M SeaMaster
>You will never even be Tom Cruise starring in a movie about being the captain of a P-6M SeaMaster
>>956211
>in the middle of the ocean
Yeah ... no. Not unless you can find a patch of it that isn't 3m waves that will smash you to pieces before you're even landed.
>>956216
Finding places to land isn't the problem. There is a hell of a lot more flat water in the world than there is flat land.
The real problem is that it takes a lot more to prepare an aircraft for a combat mission than just loading fuel and weapons, and it takes a LOT more than that to service one that is returning from such a mission and is expected to sortie again.
Having a submarine perform such maintenance on a seaplane in potentially hostile waters is a recipe for disaster, and is insanely complicated & expensive besides.
It's still a cool idea.
>>956222
>it takes a lot more to prepare an aircraft for a combat mission than just loading fuel and weapons
Depends on who built the plane. Some of us build planes to land on stretches of country roads, with a turnaround time under fifteen minutes by a crew of nine people, only two of which are specifically trained for the tast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNlGgQ6VEbY
Was looking at craiglist for a used jet for my commuting/groceries but it looks like there is not a single used jet, so I must buy a new one. Does anybody knows an online store that sell cheap and reliable jets?
>>956223
This is basically the same idea as being able to land on water and get re-armed by a submarine. It's fine until you have a minor mechanical failure. If you know much about the history of jet campaigns or have any experience in aviation, you'll understand that such failures are commonplace.
In any case, there is rather a large difference between a 1950's amphibious strategic jet bomber, and a 2011 reconnaissance fighter designed for countries with no money (Sweden, South Africa, etc). So your comparison is not exactly apt.
>>956228
eBay
Aviationclassifieds
Aerotrader
Trade-a-plane
>>956231
>It's fine until you have a minor mechanical failure.
Yeah, it's not as if an engine replacenemt on the Draken took under twenty minutes. The planes have always been designed from the ground up to actually be field maintainable. It's a design perspective that is only lacking in american fighters that have to be stripped down and repainted if they get rained on and therefore have no practical, strategical role what so ever. *cough*raptor*cough*
>hurrdurr no moniez
Weak 'murica troll is weak.
>>956233
well look at how Brazil tried to cheap out with Sea Griphen.. yet turns out naval aviation is really hard and expensive, and the sea Griphen costs have tripled. Should have gone with proven F-18s.
>>956233
The Israelis seem to make due, what with having the most active & successful airforce in the world. But you're right. Our airforce should really take more queues from Sweden & Hungary.
>>956233
>It's a design perspective that is only lacking in American fighters
I think it's because people actually buy American fighters. We make a few hundred to a few thousand for ourselves as needed, move on to the next design as technology progresses, and spend the next three decades selling the older models - along with training, technical support, infrastructure, parts, accessories, update packages, etc
Cultural imperialism by way of planned obsolescence. The American defense industry is basically Apple's big, scary brother.
>>956237
>Griphen
Are you the Tu-* troll? It's Gripen. I could accept a translated 'the Griffin' or 'the Gryphon', but Griphen is just plain confused.
>>956233
You shouldn't talk about shit you know nothing about.
Top of the line fighter jets aren't meant to be "field mantainable", they're either flight worthy, or they're not. A "field mantainable" jet is a cheap, second rate option, that no first world country usually fields - the cheapest F-16 is not "field mantainable" at all.
The F-22 has an older RAM coating which deteriorates if constantly exposed to the elements, but guess what? No nation has yet matched the F-22, that's what you get when you plan 20+ years ahead of any other country in the world. The F-35 has none of these problems.
If you want to talk about jet fighters - sure, go ahead, but do it only if you know what the fuck you're talking about. Which means not saying "no pratical, strategical role" when talking about the planes built by a nation that ruled the skies for the past 60 years or so, and it's still 20 years ahead of the competition.
I mean, the fucking US NAVY has a better AIRFORCE than any other airforce in the world except the US one, and I think the US Marines Air Corps have a stronger airforce than any of the euro countries.
No, I'm not an amerilard, but I know my shit about jets and I got triggered.
>>956240
That planned obsolescence must not be working very well I guess, since stuff like the F-15 is still the best proven fighter in the world, 40 years after its introduction, still kicking ass in training against much newer aircraft.
The "problem" with american planes is that they don't cut corners, because of the asinine amounts of money the USA can afford to spend on R&D for such machines. The USSR tried to match that, and they drove eastern europe to a complete economical collapse from which it still hasn't recovered - that says it all, really.
>>956243
Please enlighten us as to the strategical role the F-22 has. Because is has none. It's put on AWACS protection duty for show, just to have _any_ official practical role. A role that any aircraft or even SAM site/ship could fill. And the whole stealth thing is pretty redundant when you're next to a giant fucking antenna _transmitting_ high power radar signals. The F-22 is a joke.
And if you want to compare the F-35 to the Gripen, Rafale, Su-35 or Eurofighter - knock yourself out.
>>956246
>That planned obsolescence must not be working very well I guess, since stuff like the F-15 is still the best proven fighter in the world, 40 years after its introduction, still kicking ass in training against much newer aircraft.
It's a great airframe, but the characteristics that make it great don't matter as much to modern air combat trends as they did to previous decades.
>>956247
>And if you want to compare the F-35 to the Gripen, Rafale, Su-35 or Eurofighter - knock yourself out.
The F-35 is a tech demo for a dozen different game-changing technologies. Like many tech demos, it is an expensive and buggy mess. But the technologies it represents are no less important for that.
>>956252
>a dozen different game-changing technologies
About that...
So, to recap, the US _currently_ doesn't have anything that matches the four planes listed. It might have - at some unspecified time in the future. But not unless the F-35 suddenly evolves into something completely different, because none of the current models come close.
And it still does not address the issue of a design process that results in rampant maintainence costs and requirements that was the basis of the whole argument.
>>956255
Your argument about what makes a combat aircraft "good" or "bad" is specious, but I can't stick around just now to continue the discussion - have obligations outside the internet today.
It's been fun/interesting!
>>956247
>strategical role the F-22 has
it's capable of running in and out of enemy airspace without being detected, it's also a complete guarantee of air dominance. Plus entire countries are going bankrupt trying to match the effort and the closest is... japan, which is an US ally and just put out a flying stealth prototype.
I'd say it's pretty fucking strategically important?
Not going to compare shit, as far as multiroles go, the F-35 is in a whole other category: cheaper than the competition, better than the competition.
>>956252
>but the characteristics that make it great don't matter as much to modern air combat trends as they did to previous decades.
I'll be the first one to say BVR isn't proven as a concept, but so far all has been fixated at BVR and the F-15 is still king at that.
>Like many tech demos, it is an expensive and buggy mess.
Cheaper than "proven planes" like the Rafale, and it's not buggier than other projects. Any advanced jet will take years to iron out.
>>956255
four planes listed? What? You mean the Gripen, Rafale, EF and Su-35? F-22 has them beat in the air, the F-16 is a better cheap multirole, the super hornet covers naval options well.
The only noticeable option in that list is the Rafale, as its a good carrier based multirole. The F-35 has it beat in price and performance, but I decided to not compare it as it'd be unfair for the other planes.
This thread was moved to >>>/k/29955817
