Post your favourite fighter jet, /pol/.
My favorite fighter? But there are so many to choose from? How could I possibly pick just 1?
When I look at the shapes of these airplanes it just feels like they're making it up, like throw random geometrical shit everywhere. Yet this is cutting edge technology that involves sophisticated knowledge on turbulence and aerodynamics and whatever. They just look like fucking toys/
it can reach any part of the world in less than 2 hours
it docks in Low Orbit stations
>WAIT A MINUTE, do Low Orbit space stations exists?
yes, they are a must, because the SR91 expends 90% of its fuel on take off, refueling is a must
>But why isn't it refueling from an Hercules like aircraft
because of speed, it simply can't, it most be done so in Low Orbit
It can also take off Satelites using a special kind of Air to Space missiles
Not Every aircraft has to follow the same airframe design regime from the 1950s and 60s you know...
Good thing there wasn't a crowd there.
Nah senpai, I prefer Russian jets because they look the bomb. Also the F22 can't even deploy to Syria because the Russians set up a 25 dollar radar system in the area and the F35 is trying to accomplish what the Harrier did decades ago.
Also Eurofighter Typhoon < anything else.
Fine, if you need videos of American stuff crashing, you could have just asked.
I don't know much about fighter jets or if the Rafale is even good, but I've always loved the fuck out of how it looks.
How do they get the fuel to the LEO refueling station?
I know it's not a fighter jet, but why are the Americans trying to scrap this beauty? Can't think of many aircraft that boost the morale of ground troops as well as is it does.
edit: wrong pic
burned up phantom in china from viet nam conflict
Oh come on, that video is clearly sped up.
My favourite jet is the US's new long range nuclear stealth/recce bomber that goes mach 3 (or was it mach 7?) with an almost invisible (golf ball sized) radar signature.
It's classified top secret but info got leaked on /pol/ so you know it's true :^)
I really want to believe that the SB-3 Ghoul exists, that it can swap payload bays, and that that dude was serious.
I have no idea how to tell the difference. I would suspect 31 because they're actually in service but who knows.
SEEN / thnx anon, prolly a MiG-31
mods pls no bullyban
a white homeland should scrap together whatever funds it can spare for a squadron of cheap Textron Scorpions (pic related). Just for show, of course. They won't actually do anything, but it might fool some of our people into believing we actually have an air force and thus increase morale. and i guess they could technically escort nosy intruders out of our air space if need be.
I like to hate on f35 like the next guy but the age of dogfights is behind us. F35 is as technologically superior to f16 as an ar 15 is to a bolt rifle. F16 won't see him or know he's there while a sidewinder assfucks him
Will be making a massive mistake if you don't end up with it.
Too much info over too many threads with too much inside knowledge of how top secret and everything related works.
1. It's real
2. Very dedicated storyteller
Entertaining either way. I like to believe it's real, but I take everything I read on /pol/ and 4chan with a grain of salt regardless. I'm not gonna bet my life savings on a post I read here.
Also, "ghoul" was just its nickname. He never said what the official name for the thing was, just what everyone called it. Probably it doesn't even have an actual name yet; just some kind of project designation like "aurora".
Right now it's the Sukhoi PAK FA T-50, it's a sexy beast, looks 1000 times better than our Eurofighter Typhoon.
Here's some help to identify enemy niggers
>the age of dogfights is behind us
any unmanned fighters/interceptors ?
>why not strap the missiles onto a wooden blimp, which will be just as stealthy for the fraction of cost?
too slow ?
Jets are over-rated, especially in this modern era of low-intensity proxy wars.
Cost-effective master-race right here.
No way. I may like how the F-35 looks, and its stated capabilities aren't _bad_, but for $1 trillion and climbing? (and that - only counting contractor costs) No way.
The money could have been better spent. It's a pork barrel project first and foremost. Effective tool second.
I actually feel like the REAL programs are all top-secret with little political meddling (but still plenty of inefficiency/cruft from shitty contractors like lockheed et al) and don't run absolutely crazy stupid cost overruns like the F-35 did and still is.
If every US weapons program worked like and looked like the F-35, I'd actually be seriously worried about the future ability of the US to defend itself or attack others. The price:performance ratio just isn't there.
Finnish roundel, best roundel.
That's why I wanted to believe it was real. Dude seemed know what he was talking about. I just figured, worse case, he's some Tom Clancy wannabe who was practicing on us.
I'd actually be good with either scenario.
A properly flown P-40 could out-maneuver and shoot down nearly any modern jet.
The F-16 looks pretty sweet with conformal fuel tanks.
hard to break the sound barrier in a blimp
my guess is it would be slow in the turns
i like where you are going with it though
>an air defence wall of tiny stealth blimps, waiting for an enemy to invade airspace
i confess i dont have my fingers on the pulse of front line fighter aircraft anymore, dont know too much about the F-35
Their planes aren't bad m8. They're just behind in tech after they got trounced in the cold war, and they're catching up pretty quickly.
Dismissing their shit offhand would be stupid and foolish. Frankly, I'd hope our armed forces actually treat the Russian military as a serious threat, because there's no better way for the underdog to win than for his opponent being caught by surprise.
SU-27, and other Sukhoi planes in general. The design is so fucking good.
>A properly flown P-40 could out-maneuver and shoot down nearly any modern jet
then why are modern air forces not using updated ww2 era fighters ?
Jets objectively go too fast and are too heavy to fight efficiently. There's a surprisingly amount of support for reintroducing prop planes to the airforce because of the enhanced control of the plane. Try to be openminded for once in your life.
Because the military today does testing that's equivalent to common core. As long as you can follow orders, they'll put you in a plane. Back in the 40's pilots actually had skill.
A WWII pilot in a prop vs a modern pilot in a jet would be like an alligator vs a rabbit.
i got a chill just watching anon, ty
F-15 short film is also tits, ty again, saved
your welcome. I got a bunch more, I think on another hdd. I'll see if I can find them
This isn't WW2.
You don't need guns to shoot things down. The P-40 would be blown out of the sky before the pilot ever even knew there was enemy beyond the horizon.
Missiles can lock onto prop planes no problem. Even if they weren't allowed, then any modern jet could destroy the P-40 in a boom-and-zoom without any effort. The jet will have the altitude, acceleration, and speed advantage. He doesn't need to get into a turn fight to win, just swoop down and fire a single burst with a computer-assisted gun to destroy the P-40.
If speed, acceleration, climb rate, dive speed aren't that important, then WW2 would have been fought with more maneuverable biplanes and triplanes than fast monoplane designs.
Except prop planes are about half the size of jets and missiles are designed to track jets which emit more energy. People are so wrapped up with being "modern" that they forget that older technology is so much superior. A prop plane would be basically undetectable with today's radar being designed for larger things.
1v1 me then fag. I'll even take pic related and you can choose whatever fancy jet you'd like. I'll put a round through your cockpit before you even get a visual on me.
>Jets objectively go too fast and are too heavy to fight efficiently.
You literally do not know anything about aerial combat. The ability to out-speed and out-climb your opponent all but guarantees victory in a dogfight, and that's ignoring that modern aircraft don't need to dogfight in the first place.
>There's a surprisingly amount of support for reintroducing prop planes to the airforce because of the enhanced control of the plane.
Not as fighters there isn't. As attack aircraft yes.
>Try to be openminded for once in your life.
Nigger I posted >>60008209
You're just being fucking stupid.
>call in air support
>die to friendly fire
No. This is all entirely wrong. Every post you've made in this thread is wrong and I don't even want to explain why because it would take me all night. Missiles can easily lock onto a prop plane, they still produce a radar signature now just as much as they did when they were considered modern.
And here's a reason why maneuverable planes in WW2, like the Zero, ended up getting wrecked by stuff like the F6F. It's because maneuverability is only one game and once your opponent refuses to play that game, you will be helpless as they use their superior speed and energy to fight on their terms.
It would be no different now. Keep trying to do stuff like out turn a jet, you will just catch a missile or he will mow you down with the cannon using boom and zoom tactics.
>modern aircraft don't need to dogfight in the first place
So since, according to you, a prop plane couldn't win in a dogfight against a jet, then jets should be scrapped all together, since modern radar and missiles can't detect old WWII fighter jets. You're just proving my point. Keep trying, though.
Damn dude, I just don't see it. I think the way the wing shape just forms a giant triangle looks so unappealing to me.
Yeah I can't comment on how good it is as a fighter, I base my opinion only on aesthetics.
She's a trainer, but it's the sweetest ride you'll ever take in your life.
Why don't American planes have canards? They look awesome.
No need for a visual, friend
You will pop up on radar dozens of miles away and an AIM-120 will be on the way to disintegrate whatever antique prop plane you're in, long before you had any idea you were being engaged.
Better spent on what? Less effective aircraft that cost the same or more?
Mate stop reading clickbait garbage blogs and look at what your current military brass want and why.
Do you think US/Canadia/UK/Aus/Japan/Korea etc top military all just want to line their pockets and that Vlad from RussiaToday is actually correct?
Every US weapons program DOES look like this, you've just never been involved with them this way before and on this scale.
Canada will seriously regret ditching the F-35.
In my opinion the greatest fighter jet of all time. Unrivaled combat record of 105 kills to 0 A2A losses.
Extremely fast, extremely manueveurable, extremely durable.
>one lost a fucking wing and returned home
Evolved into one of the best multirole strike fighters of all time, the Strike Eagle.
So? It's even described as a gun with a jet attached to it, but that's not the reason those friendly fire incidents happened, it was always because of issues with radio channels.
The Crusader's not my all time favorite (That belongs to the Tomcat, as common as that choice is), but the F-8 is definitely under-appreciated and has its own charm.
Canards can be cool, but having canards AND traditional horizontal stabilizers is basically an admission by the engineers that they suck can't get the center of lift and and center of mass to align properly.
Case in point, look at the Gripen. Canards, but no horizontal stabilizer in back. This is how you are supposed to use canards.
The way Ivan does it is amateur shit.
Hopefully DUDEWEED looks past his election rhetoric and does the right thing for the Canucks.
You're completely and utterly retarded.
Modern all-aspect IR seekers can lock onto the heat signature of an airframe being heated by skin friction during flight. A piston engine spewing heat from its exhaust and engine cowling will stick out like a sore thumb against the cold background of the sky.
Jets wouldn't even need to fire a single shot to down some WW2 prop planes either. They'd just need to zip by them and let the jet blast knock them from the sky.
>In one scene where an F-14 "thumps" a Zero by flying under and streaking upward in front of the slower aircraft, the resultant "jet blast" of turbulent air was so intense that the control columns of both of the Zeros in the scene were violently wrenched out of the pilots' hands and caused both aircraft to momentarily tumble out of control.[Note 4] The lead pilot's headset, along with his watch were ripped off and out of the open canopy of his Zero, resulting in a few anxious moments as the F-14 pilots were unable to establish contact.
If anyone wants to watch a good jet movie, check out Les Chevaliers Du Ciel "Sky Fighters". It's French but you'll have to find one with english subs, the subs on this one are kinds fucked.
Here's a cool scene
>Every US weapons program DOES look like this
This. Before the F-35 there was, pic related, the V-22 Osprey. Same shit, slightly smaller scale. Huge cost over-runs, lots of issues in testing. Now its in service and has been a literal life saver, and is a huge asset.
Obviously the Gripen
only if >brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrttttttttttttt
huh I was wondering if such a maneuver was possible
do we know whats what in this picture? its rather confusing
anon please see >>60009091
>I don't even want to explain why because it would take me all night
i did some quick proofing of ww2 aircraft and jets b4 java shit the bed on me and had a long explanation typed up for you
so let me comment on this :
>Because the military today does testing that's equivalent to common core. As long as you can follow orders, they'll put you in a plane
false for sure
mp checking id's at the main gate, ok
>hey you passed common core, here is a multi-million dollar aircraft to fly
>tandem cockpit that isn't stepped like MiG-25PU
SEEN anon, ty
strakes instead of canards, ie f-16, f/a-18
>Last Gunfighter up in this bitch
this is an overpriced piece of shit
this here on the other hand is just as capable and way more economic
>being such a shit pilot that you need pussy shit like shields and life support.
those "pitiful lasers" can rip through just about any fighter you can put up against it
shields are energy sucking shitshows, that wont help you anyways if you have an enemy in your neck
if that energy can go to your engines or lasers instead you can easily win any dogfight
Sure in 1 on 1 scenario the tie fighter might come out on top 6 out of 10 times sacrificing all defense, but in a group furrball with more than 50 star fighters on each side with over 250 turbo lasers going off every second I'd rather not suddenly blow up when when a piece of micro debris decides to touch my hull. I'd also like the option to warp the fuck out when something goes awry.
This is why none of those Imp faggots with the exception of Lord Vader escaped the Deathstar.
the deathstar was a fucking inside job
why do you think the fucking 501st was suddendly unable to do their job?
why did the deathstars tie fighter screen not activate fully?
vader and palpatine are traitors and deserved to die.
and to your furball scenario the price of each unit becomes important
and we know that the Tie wins in that regard, which means that you can field more of them at once for the same cost
>won't work on based wooden hurricane
This IMP logic and conspiracy theories....
Doesn't matter how much fucking tie fighters you can produce at the lowest possible galactic credit, protecting your pilots (the most expensive and most vital part of your weapon system) is the most important thing in space warfare. You may produce 3,000 tie fighters in a standard galactic year, but it takes 4 years of grueling training to produce a competent fighter pilot, thus not going cheap on your hardware and giving your pilot the best chance of surviving combat is actually a pretty damn good thing.
>what is heatseeker
>what is engine heat
great bird though
> Archie McKellar
>oct 7th 1940
>BTFO x5 bf-109s
Yes, it will. The engine still gets hot and releases exhaust regardless of what material the airframe is made of.
And that's only accounting for heat-seeking IR guidance like the kind used in nearly all AIM-9 variants in service. You could be flying an airplane made of ice and a missile using an active radar lock like an AIM-120 will still shoot you down, heat signature or not.
Great plane though. Huge fan of British aircraft design. Hawker Tempest and Seafury are my favorite airplanes ever.
could have changed everything