Plenty of people keep telling me it isn't even remotely as good as a 5th gen fighter is supposed to be.
Too much emphasis on the stealth aspect, which is obsolete now.
What ays /k/?
Those people are retarded.
Even if stealth was a meme (it isn't), the F-22's got absurdly good performance and an avionics suite second only to the F-35.
>>30272018
Stealth isn't obsolete you retard.
People keep using this "stealth is obsolete" meme because they don't understand radars and stealth, and vatnik, chink and opportunistic idiots and their propaganda help keep people ignorant.
Basically a few countries have developed radars that aren't completely useless against stealth. The mistake people make is assuming that stealth makes your plane fully invisible, so if it's detected it isn't anymore. With those new radars, they think that since you can detect the F-22 at decent ranges, stealth doesn't work.
What they fail to understand is that those radars have absolutely pathetic performances compared to 'regular' ones would have against non-stealth targets. This has the same effect as throwing Russia and China back decades in radar technology. Besides, it stealth was obsolete, why would the gooks and moskals work so hard on pathetic attempts at stealth, especially if they know their own radar performances ?
Stealth is a game of cat and mouse.
The problem is the design constraints for airplanes are far more stringent than the design constraints for ground based radar.
This means that EVENTUALLY, stealth will be obsolete. It won't be this year, it may not even be in the next 50 years. But EVENTUALLY airplanes will no longer be able to hide.
The future is all about missiles and lasers. Gotta go fast.
>>30272569
>You can design ground radars to get around basic electromagnetic physics
lolno. You might be able to eke out a bit better accuracy and noise reduction, but you can't change total transmit return power loss or improve resolution you don't have from lower freq/higher wavelength radars. And as the F-35 shows, passive EWO suites are getting better than active radar systems at a far faster pace.
>>30272612
If it has mass, EM will interact with it. Stealth in theory is not possible, it only survives in the gap between chalkboard theory and current practice. It is not the future of warfare forever, only a temporary phase.
>as I thought it'd be?
>Plenty of people keep telling me
Why can't you use your fucking head and find out for yourself instead of asking other people to make your opinion for you
>>30272631
>If it has mass, EM will interact with it. Stealth in theory is not possible, it only survives in the gap between chalkboard theory and current practice. It is not the future of warfare forever, only a temporary phase.
Moron detected. Stealth isn't about invisibility, to begin with. It's about scattering the bounce and absorbing enough energy that the direct return is too small to use at ranges that protect ground facilities from direct aircraft attack. Add in tactics and sensors that let you choose how much risk to take with detection systems, and stealth only becomes more important, not less.
>>30272631
I bet you also believe that "according to science bumblebees can't fly."
>>30272708
If EM interacts with it, you can measure it with EM.
Stealth makes it more difficult to measure, but it will always be possible to measure. Stealth is restricted by form. It must fly. EM emitters and detectors have no such limitations. Stealth is on borrowed time.
>>30272717
Bugs have nothing to do with this discussion. Go back to /d/.
>>30272735
>EM emitters and detectors have no such limitations. Stealth is on borrowed time.
Red herring.
>>30272735
>Stealth is restricted by form. It must fly. EM emitters and detectors have no such limitations. Stealth is on borrowed time.
>HURR COMPOOTERS AND ANTUNNUHS URNT BOUND BY DAH LAWZ UHV FYZZIKS!
>>30272771
>>30272775
>hurr warfare never changes. that's why we're all still repelling infantry advances using grapeshot from field artillery.
If you think Stealth is the end-all-be-all, then you know absolutely nothing about the history of warfare.
There will come a day when "stealth" is no longer sufficient. To think otherwise is patently ridiculous.
>>30272798
Stealth is the end-game, moron.
It might not eventually work like it does now, but you would still need it to operate effectively.
Saying stealth is outdated because you can be detected is just willfully ignoring the fact that non-stealth aircraft would just be detected even further out.
>>30272833
I wouldn't say end game but stealth will be a necessary component of future aircrafts. Kinda like how every soldier wears camo now and not fruity Napoleon coats. One needs any advantage they can take.
>>30272833
>thinking that you are fortunate enough to live to see the end-game of war.
I get it now. Your position is one of self-important hubris.
I bet a lot of Romans thought similar. Their military technology was stagnant for generations. They probably thought they were at the pinnacle of warfare as well.
>>30272852
>stealth will be a necessary component of future aircrafts.
That I agree with.
But combat aircraft, like horses, will one day become obsolete.
>>30272875
Stealth is a question of physics and tactics, and there is no getting around the physical laws of the universe. Stealth is here to stay, you twat, which is why Russia and China are in such a panic to try to catch up on the 40 year gap.
>>30272875
>Get completely BTFO
>Resort to inaccurate analogies and massive strawmanning in desperation
>>30272936
>Stealth is the end-game
>>30272053
That's not true. Many updated 4+ gen planes have better avionics. The airframe is still great and it's fast.
>>30272926
Russia and China are in a panic because stealth is the present, and militaries live in the present.
They aren't concerned with what 2100 will hold. They're going to worry about that later.
>>30272875
They were at the pinnacle of the doctrine for their particular weapons, sure.
>>30272018
Stealth will never be obsolete
Ask yourself this, have we given up on Camo for infantry because IR exists? no
Stealth is a way of reducing enemy reaction to you, if your plane gets off the 1st missile 9 of 10 times in Air combat maneuvers you win.
In Air to ground you have just mad it so the enemy can't scramble their defenses in time to stop a strike, only to chase you on the way out
there is nothing dictating how good a 5th gen fighter is "Supposed to be" as there is nothing that has the paper tiger stats to be a threat and thats based on the assumption that the figures we take for the F-22 are true.
Rule of thumb, ex-com block tech is over stated, as they have always had the need to seem like a threat
Western counties will downplay their capabilities to keep the advantage if it ever comes to blows
>>30272978
Sure, and stealth is the pinnacle of the doctrine for our particular weapons.
To think that stealth aircraft will ALWAYS be the future is just your bias towards the present.
>>30272735
Low frequency radars are shit and piss easy to detect and destroy in their current state. There is no indication that stealth and EW technologies won't be able to keep pace, in fact it appears to be the opposite. 6th and 7th generation aircraft will likely continue to successfully evade and destroy air defense threats, aircraft sensors, standoff weapons, and autonomous systems will make manned stealth aircraft even deadlier. Low frequency radar is not the answer, in the near term or long term. That is why Russia and China have invested in their own stealth technologies in addition to developing these "anti-stealth" radars.
>>30272896
Yeah, maybe about the time we stop using firearms.
>>30272875
>I bet a lot of Romans thought similar. Their military technology was stagnant for generations. They probably thought they were at the pinnacle of warfare as well.
>mfw
Your knowledge of history is as shit as your knowledge of stealth technology.
>>30272980
Camo hides things from a piece of military equipment which has remained unchanged since the time of the Romans. The Mark 1 Eyeball.
Stealth hides aircraft from a specific sort of technological equipment that, unlike the eyeball, will be surpassed and replaced by technology you can scarcely even imagine.
>>30272995
The only thing right coming down he pipeline right now to knock stealth off its throne are hypersonic and space capable combat aircraft.
>>30272960
>They aren't concerned with what 2100 will hold. They're going to worry about that later.
And in 2100 nobody will be designing an aircraft without stealth, because it will still be superior in reducing detection than without you god damned simpleton.
>>30273016
>Yeah, maybe about the time we stop using arrows.
Firearms are secure in the foreseeable future, but to say that they will always be relevant is just ignorant.
>>30273028
Radar systems cannot get around the laws of physics. And the attacker always has the advantage of initiative and mobility in this interaction.
>>30273035
in 2100 nobody will be designing combat aircraft WITH OR WITHOUT stealth, because anything in the air without physical cover will be a sitting duck.
You may as well charge machine guns with calvary.
>>30273055
>in 2100 nobody will be designing combat aircraft WITH OR WITHOUT stealth, because anything in the air without physical cover will be a sitting duck.
The fuck are you smoking?
>>30273061
In future wars, the greatest casualties will be the birds. Anything larger than a fly will be blasted out of the sky in an instant.
>>30273038
That's not what I'm implying. What in saying is that a future in which we don't use combat aircraft is as far and remote as a future in which we don't use firearms. There's no point discussing it because we can't possibly conceive yet the weapons that will replace them (with the exception of firearms maybe).>>30273073
.
>>30273073
Unmanned Combat Aerial Systems. Lots of them.
>>30273091
Both sides will start to heavily rely on drones, and in response, start designing systems to kill drones.
Eventually somebody will get the bright idea to make ornithopter drones that disguise themselves as birds. After that, it will be open season on ANYTHING that flies. Is that a real eagle, or is it a Chinese surveillance drone? Doesn't matter, shoot it down.
>>30273028
>will be surpassed and replaced by technology you can scarcely even imagine.
Sure if you think that the effectiveness of RAMs and further shaping research won't also continue in step.
stealth is here to stay as there will never be a situation where you wouldn't want to get even 5km close to your target before the enemy knows you're there.
>>30272956
Name one 4th gen fighter with a better radar or sensor fusion.
>>30273117
We already have anti-drone weapons. They're not difficult to knock out.
Furthermore, they don't harm living things. Can just blanket an area with heavy ECM and presto you're fucked.
>>30273180
The F-22 doesn't have IRST nor two way datalink 16.
So, Eurofighter Typhoon.
>>30273055
>>30273335
So you're admitting that there is no 4th gen with a better radar or sensor fusion.
I can't fucking stand this insinuation that Stealth either works perfectly or doesn't work at all. It isn't a simple Yes/No switch to flip, it's a scale, a scale that you rather be on the good side of when it comes to any sort of combat operation. While it won't make anything completely invincible, it gives the advantage to the one with stealth, and when compounded with other advantages, makes them a huge threat.
>>30272798
>ground based emitters don't have to fly therefore they have no limitations and methods to defeat them are irrelevant
Like I said, your entire argument there was a blatant red herring.
>>30273386
As >>30273073, >>30273091, >>30273117 show, anti-stealth posters are fucking retarded.
>>30272875
The Romans actually didn't have that great military technology, and certainly nowhere near the same level of control over their troops as commanders such as Alexander or Genghis did.
>>30274111
In fact pretty much the only Roman soldiers who look like what we picture them as were the ones from the area. They just had local troops wear pretty much what they used when conquered.
>>30274111
Genghis Khan probably, but the Roman were far more organized and disciplined than Alexander.
Alexander only had good control over his cavalry and light infantry. The Phalangites were not manuverable once they deployed, unlike the maniples or cohorts.
Roman infantry commanders were allowed much more initiative than the Macedonians, and this allowed the Legions to humiliate the Successor States repeatedly.
