Lots of nations looking at new fighters right now. What does

>>31815210

Restart the F-22 production line.

In all seriousness, F-35s.

For like everything.

VLO aircraft and a good EW suite just gives you so many options.

>>31815210
F-16's with thrust vector kits, and that fancy radar that the F-22, F-35, and F-2 have.

You have yourself a Gen 5 fighter without the stealth capabilities

Gen 4.75

>>31816685
>You have yourself a Gen 5 fighter without the stealth capabilities
AKA obsolete dogshit.

>>31815210
Canada, Finland, Switzerland, Belgium should go F-35, Bulgaria can go Typhoon, India can go Gripen

>>31815237
this

>>31816708
>absolute dogshit

whatever you say anon

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/did-russias-new-radar-just-make-americas-lethal-stealth-16936

File: 1474475137747.jpg (41KB, 283x352px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 283x352px

>>31816724

>The National Interest

>>31816724
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

NATO nations need to stop acting like they won't just get F35.

Near total multiagency integrated communication would be amazing

>>31816709
>India can go Gripen

The F-16 being offered to India is arguably the better aircraft though.

>>31815222

It'll never happen, even with those trips.

>>31816837
I'm not 100% sure about that, isn't it like a Block 60 but without the CFTs and IRST?

>>31816863

It's not fair, she didn't do anything wrong. She deserves a second chance.

>>31816869
I don't believe so. The F-16IN had CFTs and IRST, I doubt they're offering a less capable aircraft now. Plus it'd be weird to have a later block that's less capable than an earlier block.

>>31815210
Canada should go Super Hornet or Typhoon.
Finland should go Gripen
Belgium should go Gripen or maybe Rafale.
Bulgaria should go F-16 or Gripen
Switzerland should go Gripen
India should go F-16

This is based on essentially ad-hoc nonsense combined with a general attitude vis-a-vis the European nations of "they won't need to use it anyway so go with what's aesthetically pleasing" and an attitude to Canada that says "They're just a hat. Maybe go Typhoon just for the commonwealth connection.", not a judgement of actual military capabilities best attuned to each nation.

File: image.jpg (74KB, 749x545px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 749x545px

>>31816724
>not this shit again
Did you even read your own link? Those types of radar have been around for a while and yeah you can spot the (large) general area where it is.. But your planes still have to find and shoot it down have fun with that.

You're fucking article literally STARTS OFF saying yeah the Russian claims are bogus you fucking tard. I came here to laugh at you.

>>31819402
Canada has more connections with the Americans now than they do with the rest of the """commonwealth""", so it would make far more sense to go F-35, or if we're being cheap fucking kikes again, Super Hornet.

>>31819566
>Canada has more connections with the Americans now than they do with the rest of the """commonwealth"""
I would regard that as a problem to be rectified instead of a fact to be accepted. :^)

Performance wise, the F-35 wins hands down.

>>31815237
Not even unironically funny. Most air forces can't afford to buy, operate, and maintain F35s like the US can. The Rafale is in most cases the best option for these countries for plane for dollar.

>>31816724
> National Interest

I'm embarrassed for you and your total lack of self-awareness.

>>31819588
Except for the whole part where Rafales are more expensive.

>>31815210
Typhoon for performance, f-35 for sucking up to yanks, gripen if money is an issue, rafale if you want aesthetics.

>>31819613
The new Gripens run $100 million per aircraft. The meme about them being cheap is obsolete.

>>31819619
What about operating costs?

High initial cost isn't too bad if you make up for it over the lifespan of the aircraft in maintenance savings.

>>31815222
This.
F-22 is the most cost efficient fighte-bomber today.
Also for everyone mentioning the F-35, its focus is being a ground attack aircraft, not a cheap F-22, it has mediocre performance as an air superiority fighter.

Both the F-22 and the F-35 are designed to work together, the first on maintaining air superiority and suppressing enemy radar AA, while the F-35 performs at lower altitudes on CAS and anti-armor roles where their biggest threats are AAA and manpads.

>>31819613
>>31819619
What I don't get about the Gripen hype what's the point when an F-16 is cheaper, has basically the same performance and can carry a bigger payload.

>>31815210
F-35 > Super Hornet > rest

File: JSCFADT-2012-Sub-2-p16.png (646KB, 768x748px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 768x748px

>>31819875

>>31819906
>muh kinematics

t. Sukhoi

>>31819939
>Kinematics
>Not relevant
The true power of the F-22 its Supercruise performance.

>>31815210

F-35 for EVERYTHING and EVERYONE

>>31819951
>not its all aspect stealth and avionics/ew/situational awareness

wew

>>31819997
Actually it isn't. When the protect started stealth wasn't even considered, it wasn't until the success of the F-117 that it was taken as a requisite.
The Supercruise capabilities gives it the ability to avoid interception and even defeat most SAM by kinematics alone.
When you take into account it's top notch stealth and maneuverability, the F-22 becomes the most ridiculously powerful military machine ever created. Which is why it is so retarded for USA to not build more, and even more retarded for everyone to be jumping into the F-35 hypewagon.

>Situational Awareness
>No FLIR
It's radar it's top notch tho.

>>31816685
>>31816708
>Thinking stealth means anything.
The only reason no one has shot down a B-2 Spirit yet is that it has only been used to bomb fucking primitives living in caves in Afghanistan. Also, remember that Saddam's army basically defected once the US invaded Iraq. None of your precious stealth tech has ever faced real opposition from an organised and modern army with proper radar and surface to air missiles.

File: f22a-vs-flanker.gif (43KB, 768x735px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 768x735px

>>31820138
Stealth is a thing, and it's a big thing. It's not an invisibility cape but heck it helps.

File: f22a-vs-f111.gif (37KB, 768x571px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 768x571px

>>31820138

>>31820207
>Low probability of intercept radar.
How is the performance of LP radars? It has always bothered me how the F-22 manages to stay undetected without FLIR.

>>31820207

It helps in what scenario exactly?

A flanker squadron carries much more ordnance than shtealthy 22s or 35s, hence their PK chances are automatically orders higher.

Your cute cones in that infographic completely ignore EW/ECM/radar uplinks and let's not forget about the absolutely hilarious assumption that the cone stays the same once the "stealth" is broken with an attack.

>>31820215
Generally, when you turn on your radar, everybody knows you're in the area and stealth doesn't matter that much.

>>31819402

The thing about the Typhoon is that from the point of view of Canada's requirements, it does make a lot of sense.

It has two engines (debatable whether that actually matters, but it seems to matter to many Canadians). It is fast enough to act as an interceptor and can supercruise. Compatible with Canada's current tanker fleet (probe). Already integrated with most common US air munitions.

However, the thing that the F-35A was cancelled for, cost, is actually the best argument to get the F-35A. It is very likely that its lifetime operating cost will be far lower than the Typhoon.

>>31820222
The F-22 has superior kinematics and thanks to stealth a huge advantage on detection range.
On an Air to Air situation it can dictate when and how to engage, and due to superior kinematics disengage at will. Stealth means the F-22 will never engage in disadvantageous terms and when it does it has the capabilities of disengage and get outside detection range. A squadron on of flankers are pretty useless when half of them is down and the target is running away at supercruise speed.
I do not want to sound like an F-22 fanboy, but it is a great machine. The F-35 is a great machine too but with very different capabilities and both it's kinematic and stealth performance are totally different to those of the F-22.

File: 1476803277239m.jpg (39KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1024x768px

>>31819825
THE F22 PRODUCTION LINE ISNT GONNA START BACK UP!
As a person who builds replacement parts for F22s, I can logically say that it's not gonna happen.
Most of the tooling and experience is long gone.
It would take a few billion just to re-train and re-tool.

>>31820304
;_;

>>31820289
>I do not want to sound like an F-22 fanboy
Then why are you using useless buzzwords straight from some brochure?

>>31820308
ok

>>31819951
>The true power of the F-22 its Supercruise performance.
A f22 pilot once said that the least impressive thing about the f22 was the acceleration.

That says a lot considering the f22 has 70,000 lbs of thrust available

>>31820307
prove me wrong.
All the f22 production engineers and shop floor guys are long gone.
I only know of 1 dude at my work that was here for the f119 parts back in the day.

>>31820311
I can tell you have very little knowledge by your vocabulary. Also, supercruise isn't that big of an advantage as you're painting it.

File: 1464187202008.jpg (387KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 2048x1365px

The Belgians will pick the F-35 purely to keep their stash of B61 bombs

t. The Netherlands who was in the same situation

>>31820213
Wouldn't passing over two overlapping detection radar areas only confirm it's existence?

>>31820313
That's funky tho, considering >>31819906
That said the most impressive contributions it's its ability to fly supersonic without the need of afterburners (things the eurodeltas are catching up now, and at quite a lower speed). That means a non-SC intercepting aircraft will need to engage in afterburners to catch up, with its huge fuel penalty, at which the F-22 can change course or in worse case scenario engage afterburners itself and disengage. You also have to keep in mind that a missile fired from a super-cruising fighter will have more kinetic energy and therefore more range than from a subsonic one, some goes with altitude.
The latest flankers are supposed to have supercruise capabilities, and do posses FLIR which the F-22 lacks, but even then the detection range difference persists.

>>31820328
It's ok.

>>31820349

not if it can't get detected.

>>31820356
>You also have to keep in mind that a missile fired from a super-cruising fighter will have more kinetic energy
Lel

Do you have any idea how fast missiles reach their maximum velocity? So fast that launch velocity doesn't practically matter.

>>31820349
Actually that's how some new proposed radars are being designed. But then to have a useful AA defense you basically need the double of radars to guarantee overlap and even then there is not a guaranty of intercept.

>>31820378
Acceleration =! Kinetic energy.

>>31820356
Without regard for preserving the stealth skin and needed to get out of an area, how fast could it theoretically go?

F-22 probably doesn't have the same aerodynamics and heat resistant airframe, but it weighs less than twice as much and has more thrust than a SR-71. Not saying it should be faster but wouldn't that indicate the technology is there to build a faster plane (which may be classified)?

>>31820387
>Acceleration =! Kinetic energy.
And any kinetic energy you might gain by launching it at higher velocity is wasted because the missile is designed to be launched and usable at even low velocities.
Go take a look at thrust, Isp and velocity graphs at different altitudes.

>>31819870
>>31819619
Initialcost of the aircraft itself is not very important since most of these deals require that the seller reinvest a major pert of the profit in thE buyer. IN this regard sweden is less likely to drive a hard bargain than the US.
Additionally, the flight cost for gripen is less than 1/5 of the f-35, which makes it cheaper if you intend to actually use it.

>>31820404
The F-22 right now has a supercruise of about mach 1.8 and max speed of 2.25.
The problem with higher speeds is that you need to optimize your fighter for both your altitude and speed envelope, I assume you could design a faster F-22 but it will reduce it's efficiency at lower speeds and altitudes. I must point out that the SR-71 had almost the same thrust than the F-22 but without using afterburners, which is a big deal. Also the YF-12.

>>31820432
I do not understand what you mean. Of course AA missiles will work at lower velocities (You can have SAM based on AA missles after all) but a AA missle fired at 1.5 mach will have superior performance than one fired at subsonic speed. In booth cases the amount of propellant on the missile is the same, but of course one missile will count with extra energy (kinetic) which means it will reach higher velocities when the propellant runs out, there fore increasing performance.

>>31816709
Second this.

>>31819588
The rafale is as expensive per plane as the f-35, and will be more expensive to maintain because it has two engines and isn't used by as many countries and isn't manufactured in as large numbers.

>>31820462
And what sort of range performance increase are you expecting from launching at 1.8Ma instead of 0.8Ma?

>>31819825
The F-22 isn't that great as a bomber or ground attack. It's an air superiority fighter. Think F-15. And yes I know they made the f-15E that's built to be a strike plane. Key point being it was a variant specifically built for that. The F-35 is a multirole like the F-16 is. It's not some dedicated ground attack plane like you're saying.

Canada should get Su-35s with western engines and electronics

>>31820035
Except it's also crazy expensive, and is already using lots of obsolete hardware/software and would require expensive upgrades to produce more.

The US already has like 180 or something. That's plenty to fulfill the air superiority role.

>>31815222
Nice trips

The problem with the F22 is that it's electronics suite is kind of dated. You could probably throw the F-35's electronic equipment in there if you tried hard enough, though.

File: F_A-22A_weapons_load.png (31KB, 640x505px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x505px

>>31820473
That's actually a good question. I don't know.
I calculated that you would gain 22,84 [MJ] of energy or about 500% more of kinetic energy.
Now pulling number out of my ass and assuming a max speed for the missile of about mach 4, it would receive between 2 to 5% more kinetic energy (Considering a missile weight of 152 kg)

>>31820479
I agree. And I really like the F-35 vs F-16 comparison. It's indeed a multirole as it can perform against ground and other air targets, but you have to keep in mind that stealth does not make it a air superiority fighter. The F-35 can not fend itself against late revisions of Flankers and Chinese fighters and it's not meant to, not it's radar, kinetic performance or stealth would allow him to.
The F-22 is to replace the F-117 in it's role of air interdiction, where it's ability to supercruise over enemy territory evading air defences and intercepting aircraft, drop it's payload of GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs and then come out alive. It's an important role actually that cannot be accomplished by the lower performance F-35, that's why I called it a fighter-bomber, of course it wouldn't perform as well on CAS and other similar roles where loiter time and situation awareness is important and where the F-35 shines.

>>31820138
As long as stealth aircraft are capable of seeing the enemy and shooting first, it's good enough.

File: 1475811917028.gif (2MB, 340x307px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 340x307px

>>31820609

>The problem with the F22 is that it's electronics suite is kind of dated.

That doesn't matter. You can easily swap out computers for newer computers.

>>31820490
>crazy expensive
Is it? It's about 50% more expensive than a Eurofighter yes, but it goes a generation forward.
But yeah all the other reason do apply.
>FB-22 never
;_;

File: 1472262034408.png (1MB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x720px

>>31820490

>The US already has like 180 or something. That's plenty to fulfill the air superiority role.

Then why hasn't the F-15C been retired yet?

>>31820640
I'm certainly not saying it's not possible, but the entire F-22 fleet is in need of an electronics overhaul.

An F-22 with the F-35's modern electronic equipment would be terrifying to behold, though.

>>31820648
FB-22 still lives on in our hearts

>>31820660
The F-15 will continue to see use as a missile and bomb truck, much like the F-4 before it.

It'll only be a matter of time before we see Wild Weasel F-15E's

>>31820629
>the enemy
In an air superiority situation, sure.
Against SAM + mobile & camouflaged radar, nope don't think so.

File: J-20（2016_October）.jpg (2MB, 2560x1706px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1706px

>>31820674

The F-15 can be used as a bomber but it is useless for its original air superiority role. There is too much competition out there than can match or exceed its abilities.

>>31820674
This is true.
It doesn't take away the fact that the F-15 is no longer capable of operating over hostile territory.

>>31819906
>Guesstimate chart

>>31815237
>F-35
>India

>>31819870
The Gripen E has the same payload as a F-16

Bulgarian here, we'll probably end up with third-hand F-16s with like 10 years of service life remaining, especially now that they passed a law that allows the MoD to skip the contest "if deemed necessary".

>>31815210
Canada: F-35 suits their needs perfectly.

Finland: Rafale would probably be best or the F-35.

Belgium: F-35

Bulgaria: F-16s. So many F-16s

Switzerland: Superbug or Gripen even though the Gripen is shit.

India: Probably the F-16, Gripen if they really want to try building up their loo industry.

>>31820907
They are buying the Gripen E, not the Gripen C.
The Gripen E is at least on par with contemporary F-16 and it will have a much superior radar and A2A loadout with the MBDA Meteor.

>>31820946
Meteor is a nice addition, but is there any reason to think the Gripen's radar is better than APG-80? The F-16's nose is a bit larger, so it should be a bit more powerful.

File: F-22A-Size-Comparison-4.png (158KB, 768x522px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 768x522px

>>31820907
>Canada
>Geostrategic needs
> Air defence against strategic bombers and cruise missile payloads.
>Expeditionary warfare campaigns supporting Commonwealth, either against COIN and tactical bombing or against proper enemies with modern AA systems and fighters.
The only scenario in which the F-35 fits is on the second one from those three.

You can not choose the F-35 as your main and only fighter. A decade ago high capability air superiority fighters and SAM systems were exclusively of a few nations, but now countries like Venezuela,Vietnam and Indonesia are in posses of modern Flanker variants. The F-35 it is not a single engine F-22. A low capability fighter aircraft can not be your only asset.

>>31816801
>America should make everything and the plebs should just shut it and buy it

Yeah, nah, you're a cunt.

>>31820946
Gripen is still shit compared to the F-16. Upgrade the avionics in the F-16 for whatever the customers need is and they'll be in a better position than a Gripen, especially since everyone and their brother makes F-16 parts and you can't throw a rock on any NATO airfield without hitting someone who's worked on an F-16.

>>31821002
F-35 has great range and can supercruise all while having a great radar and IRST built in. That sure seems like a great method of detecting and engaging hostile strategic bombers and low flying cruise missiles to me famalam.

>>31820616
>The F-35 can not fend itself against late revisions of Flankers and Chinese fighters
I would heavily disagree with that; F-35s have raped F-15Es equipped with better radars than any Russian or Chinese 4.5th gen fighter.

>>31820989
Well, Gripens radar is 10 years younger but the benefits of that if any is unknow to anyone posting on a mongolian weaving forum.
The primärt benefit of the ES-05 Raven is that it is Montes on a rotating mount mening it can scan and track in a 200 degree cone. Being able to track, launch and guide missiles to your 3 o'clock is a huge advantage and makes it much easier for you to keep on guidning your missile while doing evasive manouvers.

>>31821002
>The F-35 it is not a single engine F-22.
You're right, it's better than what a single engine F-22 would be.

>>31821027
The F-35 does not have supercruise. Also it lack missile payload and it's radar it's not great. In order to engage hostile strategic bombers you first need to engage their flanker escorts, which will be a problem.

>>31821027
The radar on Gripen is better than contemporary F-16s, their AA loadout is better and matinence is far easier.
The engine in the gripen is the same as the latest super bug which makes spare parts an easy task.
As far as I know the F-16 can't supercruise which is an advantage for the Gripen.
The F-16 does have some advantages such as more fuel and a bit heavier loadout but to call the gripen shit compared to it is just flat out wrong.

File: F-16e_block60.jpg (804KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

804KB, 1280x1024px

I'd love to see the Indians take over production of the F-16. How pissed would China be if the IAF suddenly started shitting out a couple dozen 'Super' F-16's (AESA, CFTs, IRST etc...) every year. Combine with AMRAAM-D or Meteor for maximum lulz.

>>31821058
>F-35 vs F-15E
Yes, I read about it.
I must point out that the F-15E isn't an air superiority fighter like the flanker variants, but leaving that aside I recall that they couldn't detect, intercept and shoot down the F-35. Not that the F-35 archived any F-15E kill. I might be wrong tho.

>>31821131
There's isn't a flanker variant flying, including the T-50, that can handle a wing of F-35s in air to air combat configuration.

>>31821131
The F-15E is just an F-15C with bigger engines, another seat, and a Lantern pod.

There's literally no difference in its A2A capabilities.

>>31821075
The F-35 doesn't supercruise, but it does sustain Mach 1.2 without afterburner. It also currently can hold 4 AMRAAMs internally as of Block 3F or 12 AMRAAMs internally + externally, as well as 2 additional wingtip AIM-9X. 6x AMRAAM internal storage is possible and is being considered for either Block 4.3, 4.4 or Block 5, while in the meantime, the USAF is progressing the SACM and MSDM missile programs, designed to allow an F-35 to carry 12 AMRAAM-equivalent missiles internally.
As for radar, the F-35's AESA is extremely powerful; it would certainly have a greater detection range than that of the Irbis-E for example. To give a comparison against other AESAs, the F-35's APG-81 has 1628 T/R modules, the F-22's APG-77 has 1932 T/R modules, the PAK-FA's forward-looking N036 has 1522 T/R modules and the Typhoon's CAPTOR-E will have 1424 T/R modules.

>>31821131
While not a proper air superiority fighter, the F-15E does have a greater T:W than the F-15C and a better radar. That said, it doesn't turn as well as the F-15C due to the different stability margin and greater weight. With equivalently trained pilots however, an F-15E should be the more lethal (in A2A) of the two, at least until the F-15C fleet finally gets all their AESAs.

>>31821150
>10,000 lbs heavier

>>31821159
>Assuming the F-15E is carrying extra fuel for no reason

>>31821154
F-35's APG-81 is outperformed by later Zhuks, and it has no room for upgrading. It has medium power aperture with no sidelooking aperture like designated air supremacy fighters. The plane itself does not count with thrust vectoring, can not engage while in supersonic, does not have the thrust to weight ratio and has a single engine.
It is a big mistake to relegate or think of the F-35 to the role of air supremacy or CAP, something for which it wasn't designed for.
The F-35 it's a great aircraft, for it's intended role, but it shouldn't be your only resource specially with the future widespread of high performance air superiority fighters and upcoming stealth fighters.

>>31820240
>Generally, when you turn on your radar, everybody knows you're in the area and stealth doesn't matter that much.
Except that LPI radar emissions go a long way to cutting down the efficiency of specific emissions detection return tracking against enemy RWR systems.

It doesn't make them undetectable, but it makes them much harder to detect. Think of it like a game of flashlight tag where one side has flashlights, and the other side has IR lights and NVGs for a very rough and flawed analogy.

>>31820308
>buzzwords
Using correct terminology to describe the systems and problem sets is now using buzzwords? Why are you so scared of frank and accurate discussion, anon?

Hornet sucks.

File: file[1].jpg (39KB, 710x263px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 710x263px

>>31821278
>F-35's APG-81 is outperformed by later Zhuks,
Which Zhuk? The only one that comes close to the APG-81 in terms of basic performance is the new FGA-35(3D), which hasn't been installed in any aircraft, has less than 2/3 as many T/R modules and roughly 2/3 the diameter. The only potentially redeeming factor is its use of GaN T/R modules, but even then it's unknown whether they're being properly utilised.

>it has no room for upgrading
For one thing, the APG-81 can and will be upgraded to GaN modules. Second, there is actually quite a bit of internal area to increase the size of the radar aperture (see pic)

>It has medium power aperture
By what standard? Besides that, power is secondary to factors such as aperture area, antenna gain and the limiting of internal noise.

>no sidelooking aperture like designated air supremacy fighters
So the F-22 isn't an air supremacy fighter? Or the F-15C with AESA?
The US and F-35 in particular avoids the need for side-looking apertures via MADL and the F-35's wingmen.

>The plane itself does not count with thrust vectoring
Why does thrust vectoring matter? Hell, Typhoon operating nations have turned down the option of thrust vectoring due to it not giving sufficient return of investment.

>can not engage while in supersonic
The F-35 can launch AMRAAMs at up to Mach 1.6.

>does not have the thrust to weight ratio
The F-35 has a T:W ratio of 1.07 at 50% fuel; it's not as high as some air supremacy fighters, but definitely in the same realm as jets like the Su-35.

>has a single engine.
If you lose an engine in a twin engine during a fight, you're not any better off than a single engine fighter.

>F-35 to the role of air supremacy or CAP, something for which it wasn't designed for
Why? What difference would a Su-35 or whatever's slight superiority in thrust-to-weight have against the VLO stealth, superior situational awareness via better sensors and datalinking, and more advanced EW of the F-35?

>>31820378
It does affect energy budget and thus maximum NEZ envelope for a given missile. However, that's why the F-22 exists. The F-35 isn't replacing the F-22, in the same way that the F-16 didn't replace the F-15A/C. This also doesn't mean the F-16 or F-35 aren't very, very effective in A2A combat themselves, just not as optimized as the airframes specifically designed and specialized for the air superiority role.

>>31820462
>the SR-71 had almost the same thrust than the F-22 but without using afterburners
Anon, you do realize that the SR-71s J58-1 engines were continuous bleed afterburning engines, right? That they were literally designed for basic, nominal operation in afterburner, right? That with afterburner, they produced 34,000lbf each?

The F-22s F119-PWs produce more than 35,000lbf each with afterburner, and (here's the kicker) weigh far less per engine than the J58-1s with much better fuel efficiency. The J58s weighed 6,000+ pounds; the F119 weighs only 3,900lbs. The F119 is also 25cm smaller diameter (120cm VS 145cm) and 28cm shorter (516cm VS 544cm). The final thrust to weight ratio for each engine ends up over 9 for the F119 and about 6 for the J58.

What does all this mean? The F119s in the F-22 make more thrust than the S7-71's J58s, and they do this with much less volume, 2/3 the overall weight and while burning much less fuel. If the US were to need to design an SR-71 today to have exactly the same performance, they could do it with a plane 2/3 the size and maybe on a single engine (less fuel, much smaller/lighter modern recon packages). Conversely, they could build something SR-71 sized with the same kinematics which also carried about a 30,000lbs weapons payload in internal bays (that's the rough fuel savings).

>>31820640
>That doesn't matter. You can easily swap out computers for newer computers.
>easily swap out computers
>easily

Jesus christ, anon.

>>31821455
God, I love it when Dragon029 shows up to the party. New vid when Dragon?

And when are you going to take a crack at clearing up some of the confusion on the LCS, Zumwalt, Ford, Osprey and Blackhawk replacement projects?

>Muh gripen is expensive meme has to die

The Gripen E for Brazil costed around 150 million each (including weapons, simulators, tech transfer, initial training, spares and a production plant)

Japan payed over 238 milion each for their F-35s wich also includes some of the above mentioned things.

The USAF F-35A price of 85 million is because they ordered thousands of them. Export deals are way more. Same goes for the Gripen, the Swedish air force got away much cheaper than brazil.

>>31821840
>Japan payed over 238 milion each for their F-35s wich also includes some of the above mentioned things.
It also included a shit ton of infrastructure improvement on their air bases, simulators and logistics systems. All of which vastly decreases cost per flight hour over airframe lifetime.

Not to mention the vast operational and capability advantages represented by the F-35 over the Gripen NG. Yes, the Gripen is cheaper. But not nearly as cheap as you imply.

The cost differential of far more heavily produced normal part replacements and refurbishments alone cut into that margin a great deal.

>>31821926

In addition the fact that the USA has decided to procure thousands of F-35s for the; USAF, USN, and USMC, that there are around a dozen wealthy nations committed to the program, and it is planned to stay in service past 2060, means that it is a certainty that the F-35 will have upgrades, plentiful spare parts, and new replacement/additional aircraft available guaranteed for literally decades.

The Gripen is looking competitive now, but it is unlikely to see the same kinds of investment in its future as the F-35 will receive.

>>31815210
>India
>Looking at the Gripen E or F-16 Block 70 to replace Mig-21s and Mig-27s
You're wrong. These are baits.

>>31821667
>LCS, Zumwalt, Ford, Osprey
Part of me want to see this as well, but a bigger part of me dont want to expose the poor guy to the rampant autism and shitposting that would ensue from it.

>>31820907

>Rafale for us in Finland

Literally why even the fuck?

>>31822849
Maybe you want to put a carrier in the many lakes if finland or maybe patrol the vast and mighty gulf of Bothnia?
Think of the many possibilities in the baguette-jet.

>>31821002

what the fuck is this garbage image

>>31822849
don't worry, we're not going to buy the Rafale
only reason it and the eurofighter are in the competition is the appearance of fairness and so the manufacturers have less to bitch about

it's either going to be the new gripen (since swedes are offering local manufacturing) or the F-35A (future capability).

File: dae.jpg (138KB, 980x1040px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 980x1040px

>>31822849
Rafale can do A2G by itself

Something the Typhoon still isn't allowed to do

>>31823206
>Something the Typhoon still isn't allowed to do

What do you mean by this?

>>31823206

>Something the Typhoon still isn't allowed to do

Source? I thought the FGR4 standard was using the LITENING III pod like the Tornado GR4.

>>31816876
Why did the F-22 stop being made or whatever? I'm not big on such topics, but from what I've seen the F-22 seemed to be pretty amazing.

>>31823267
he thinks its still 2010

>>31823206
Rafale lacks a decent-tier BVRAAM - until it gains one, the Typhoon will be its superior.

>>31820138
>None of your precious stealth tech has ever faced real opposition from an organised and modern army with proper radar and surface to air missiles.
Serbs might want to disagree with you; B-2 dropped plenty of bombs in former Yugoslav territory in 1999 & they had relatively modern triple-A, they shot down a Nighthawk with those weapons (they cheated though by spamming the sky with missiles in a location they knew a Nighthawk would fly through at a certain time)

>>31821926
>It also included a shit ton of infrastructure improvement on their air bases, simulators and logistics systems.

Also included in the brazilian deal. But the Gripen can operate from rather shitty bases so they might not need to improve their airfields.

That said I still think that the FH cost of the Gripen is way cheaper. I do however agree that the F-35 probably is a better plane in many regards.

>>31823354
The Meteor is still only integrated with the Gripen C, but that will probably soon change.

>>31822849
don't tell anyone, but it's part of a cunning plan to acquire nukes & use Rafale as the delivery system.

>>31823206

>Typhoon has been bombing by itself since 2011, has done so in three separate conflicts over four countries and is doing it literally right now

You been under a rock?

>>31823386

He's refering to AMRAAM.

>>31823469

Then buy F-35's, cheaper and superior nuke delivery system that actually has nukes manufactured by a country that gives it to allies on rare occasions to "store".

>>31823469
Nukes are a bit of an overkill to dry out the lakes, though

>>31823560
>Nukes are a bit of an overkill
"there is no "overkill", there are only "open fire" and "reload""

File: An_F-14D_Tomcat_conducts_a_mission_over_the_Persian_Gulf-region.jpg (1MB, 1796x1297px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1796x1297px

I have no idea about airplanes and don't want to open a new thread but...
What was the F-14 and why isn't it used anymore by any country? Seems to be a pretty based plane

>>31823623

Maintenance costs and other newer aircraft doing pretty much all of its job, plus a lot more of multirole.

tl;dr - It cost more than it was worth to operations. If it was still around, we'd have lost something else instead.

>>31823623
Once the Cold War ended, the need for a fleet based interceptor diminished. That and political issues between various players led to it being shitcanned with the tooling destroyed, ostensibly to deny the Iranians, the only current users of the aircraft, replacement parts. Nevermind that it was a potent strike aircraft in addition to a capable dogfighter.

>>31823623
>why isn't it used anymore by any country?
Iran is still using it, why no-one else is using it is simple: it's a plane designed in '60s & the airframes were at the end of their lifespan, they were also expensive to maintain.

>>31821448
You suck

File: RadarAquisition.png (76KB, 640x448px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x448px

>>31816724
Not going to attack the source..

But did you ever consider what these "lol, I see stealth jets" radars do to non-stealth airframes??

For a hypothetical example, if the MAGIC Radar makes a F-22 go from an RCS of 0.001m2 too 0.1m2... THEN it would cause a MiG-21 to go from 1m2 too 100m2 RCS.

Same goes for the Hornet, Eagle, Falcon, Viper, Apache, Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale...

Basically, a super radar just makes stealth aircraft MORE important, not obsolete.

>>31824050
So according to this stealth does have utility against the active homing seekers of missiles? Since I always assumed that by the time those kicked in it'd be to close to matter.

Though I suppose the seekers are fairly weak all things considered.

>>31823522
>not a single pound of payload has been dropped and targeted by the same aircraft

typhoon is a boon doggle

If the mountains don't get Rafales they can just fuck off and watch their airspace on their own.

>>31824087
mountains jews*

>>31824087
>>31824111
Their jewish nature will manifest again and they'll opt for the cheapest alternative again.
Additionally it reflects very poorly on them from a trade standpoint if they choose another jet instead of Gripen should they choose to restart the fighter purchase.
Everyone will be reluctant to sign a deal with them because they know the dirty sneaky french will whip up discontent in the french speaking part of Switzerland and have the deal overturned until the alternative benefiting France is chosen.

>>31824067
Definitely.

A active home missile, with its tiny radar array needs a good reflection to develop a lock on.

F-22, F-35, and possibly even J-20 pilots might just ignore and watch active radar homers fly right on by oblivious to the aircraft.. depending on the model of course.

>>31815222
I think in about 10-15 years, they'll do a mk.II version with completely redesigned avionics, enhanced vector thrusting, and an enhanced stealth profile.

File: BOEING-FA-18-SUPER-HORNET61.jpg (160KB, 1600x1065px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1600x1065px

>>31824079

>Has sold literally more than double the number of Rafales
>Chosen by double the number of nations
>Persistently self-strike capable since 2011
>Massive funded future growth already on flying trials

I'm willing to bet you're the MUH SPECTRA guy from a while ago who just screamed that word over and over and tries to imply the Rafale is more multipurpose than Super Hornet and has better A2A than a Raptor.

>>31824079

RAF uses LITENING III, RSAF uses the same Damocles pod as the French use on the Rafale. Both are dropping bombs at this very moment.

>>31824133
Will the French there really get that asshurt if the Swiss government go with another option?

>>31815210
>buying fighters
Literally servers no purpose, no purpose whatsoever. Who are you going to turn your fighters on? Going to repel the US, France, Britain? Nope. Russia even going to get over to you? Nope. Close to Russia already? Gonna get shot down by fixed/mobile SAM's. Planning on putting down a domestic revolt with air superiority fighters? Really?

It's a complete and utter waste of money. The only exception I can think of is India/Pakistan and even then Pakistan is outclassed to the point that neither side needs to bother.

>>31824197
>tries to imply the Rafale is more multipurpose than Super Hornet and has better A2A than a Raptor.

To be fair the Rafale and Super Hornet have basically the exact same role. The Super Hornet just has alot more munitions available to it because France won't buy all that much foreign shit for some reason. Not really a fault of the Rafale.

>>31824234

The butthurt was 200% real when Brazil told them to go fuck themselves and chose Gripen E instead.

"We regret that the choice has gone in favor of the Gripen, an aircraft provided with many items of equipment of third party origin, especially U.S., and that does not belong to the same category as the Rafale," the company officials said in a statement.

"The Gripen is a lighter, single-engine aircraft that does not match the Rafale in terms of performance and therefore does not carry the same price tag. This financial rationale fails to take into account either the Rafale’s cost-effectiveness or the level of technology offered," the officials added.

The hilarious thing is that despite what he says, Gripen at least has BVR, a two-way datalink and a larger, traversable AESA then the Rafale's smaller fixed AESA, so Dassault is basically talking out of their ass, and even trying to imply the US doesn't make good components to sooth the ass ache.

Shit's hilarious when they get knocked back.

>>31824133
>>31824234
As the rest of the world, the French Swiss (Read Switzerland citizens) despise actual French people.
And French people working there don't give a fuck as long as they get their nazi gold paychecks

>>31824248

Super Hornet also has a larger radar and is much cheaper, not to mention it has the Growler ECM too if you're buying those planes as part of it. It's not a matter of "buying" foreign stuff, it's just a matter of integrating it to be appealing.

>>31824310
F/A-18 ASH (Advanced Super Hornet) is the best option after F-35A, in all respects.

And just like another Ash would say... "Gotta catch them all" is Boeings new motto.

>>31824200
You mean those pods that the Tornados used to designate targets?

Rafale has already proven itself to be multirole and superior to the eurofagger

File: l-1C0w.jpg (72KB, 800x557px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x557px

>>31824404
>mutlirole
Omnirole

>>31824404

>Frog thinks a pod can only be used by a single aircraft

>>31820378

You don't know what you're talking about. the F-22's ordinance also has a vastly longer range because its cruise altitude is over 60,000 feet. this applies to its bomb load as well.

>>31824404
>Rafale has already proven itself to be multirole and superior to the eurofagger

I know this is bait, but come on at least try

>>31824236
Way to be completely ignorant of history, geology, geopolitics, game theory (specifically conventional deterrence value) and basic common sense RE: preparedness and readiness level.

You are almost too stupid to live.

>>31824236
>Russia even going to get over to you?
>Finland
>Bulgaria
>Canada

Well. Ain't you about 16 kinds of stupid.

>>31820215
>It has always bothered me how the F-22 manages to stay undetected without FLIR.
What?

>>31824481
Euroshit is only a bit (a bit) better in A2A capability, rafale is better for everything else and that's understandable since it was primarly designed to bomb durkas in Africa

>>31820701
Thought this was F-15MTD-STOL for a second.

>>31824643

Buying an expensive air superiority jet like the Eurofighter or Rafale just for bombing durkas is... a bit of a strange decision.

An air superiority jet which can also drop guided munitions when needed, seems to make a lot more sense than one that gives up air to air performance to achieve this.

The RAF combination of the Typhoon as a supercruising interceptor & air superiority fighter which can do ground attack missions when needed, combined with the F-35 which can launch ground attacks against an enemy which has SAMs and their own interceptors, and the MQ-9 Reaper which can provide cheap air support and strikes against an asymmetric opponent seems to cover all the roles with appropriate overlaps. Are the French just planning on never fighting an opponent at a similar technology level or something?

>>31824859
They do have a few Reapers, though I believe they're unarmed. I'm guessing they're waiting for nEUROn to be a thing, though that's at least 10 years out from actual operational capability.

>>31824859
It's its primary use, while it's still supposed to be credible against more modern threats
Also the Typhoon is not carrier capable which is a no-go for the french.

>>31824643

>Euroshit is only a bit (a bit) better in A2A capability

Try "substantially" better. BVR missiles, much higher supercruise with larger interceptor loads while remaining supercruise capable, AESA is vastly more capable by being almost double the t/r modules and field of view, an HMD, much higher service ceiling, more powerful engines and kinematics at altitude and supersonic speeds, two-way datalink to fully use Meteor to its maximum extent, recessed BVR mounts, greater use of frontal aspect composites, canard RCS management system, longer ranged IRST. Britecloud is already being trialed for it, in addition to the Praetorian ECM suite gives it a very powerful contender to Spectra. (Which is fairly overrated by marketing anyway)

When it comes to developed A2A, it's definitely the superior.

>rafale is better for everything else

At the exact "now", yes. But it's pretty much hit its ceiling. Storm Shadow arrives in 2017 to match SCALP (same missile), Reccelite to bring up to recon. It already has Paveway IV to match AASM, but Paveway IV is getting a bunker buster warhead as effective at penetrating as a 2,000lb Paveway III and an active guidance seeker as well. Brimstone, for which Rafale has no comparitive weapon system, comes in 2018. Spear Cap 3 soon after, which functions as a multi-mode mini-cruise missile with SEAD and ASM purposes built in so it overrides Exocet as well. Conformal tanks are a maybe, and it's already flown with AFK that makes it literally Super Hornet tier in WVR angle of attack, easy to install.

Thats not even counting other integrations like SOM, Taurus, the AESA tipped Meteor for the UK and Japan only, further AMRAAM updates, ASRAAM Block 6...

In current plans of integration on both of them, the Rafale will remain ahead in drop tank use, a larger recon pod and having a nuclear missile and carrier variant. That is pretty much it.

>>31821667
Episode 4 came out something like 2 weeks ago. As for the LCS, Zumwalt, Ford, I could take a crack (I do like the Zumwalt and think it has the potential to house some impressive systems, the LCS is alright but problematic and the Ford is just having teething issues IMO, but I'm not a Navy guy, so I don't think I will. The Osprey I think is doing alright these days, the Blackhawk replacement / JVL program is something I'm interested in, but I think it's a tad early yet, same with the B-21 and NGAD, though it's possible.

>>31821840
The USAF F-35A price of $85 million is a flyaway price (the plane, engine, helmet, nothing else), the $238 million that Japan is paying is a procurement price, same with the Brazilian Gripen E $150 million (or whatever it was) price.

The $85 million is what the USAF and Japan and every other partner nation pays per A variant in Full Rate Production, the rest of the Japanese $238m figure is the support infrastructure, training, initial spares, etc. More than that though, the $238 million apparently includes a *lifetime* of support, which isn't cheap; normally you only see ~10 years of support included in procurement deals. Note that lifetime of support =/= lifetime sustainment cost.

>>31823301
The SecDef Robert Gates wasn't a big fan of acquiring things for future wars, and was dealing with the resurgence in Iraq; he cancelled the F-22 so that he could get the Army things like $50 billion worth of MRAPs.

>>31816685
>Thrust vectoring
>Single engine
Pick one.

>>31825865
>Episode 4 came out something like 2 weeks ago. As for the LCS, Zumwalt, Ford, I could take a crack (I do like the Zumwalt and think it has the potential to house some impressive systems, the LCS is alright but problematic and the Ford is just having teething issues IMO, but I'm not a Navy guy, so I don't think I will. The Osprey I think is doing alright these days, the Blackhawk replacement / JVL program is something I'm interested in, but I think it's a tad early yet, same with the B-21 and NGAD, though it's possible.
I'll be interested to see what you take up next. Episode 4 was good. You'll have to let the F-35 go for the big vids soon; it's becoming clear to even the most tangentially informed that it's a successful program and will be an excellent fighter. I say this not as an F-35 lover (I was, after all, pretty heavily shitting on it up until about 2012), but as a lover of clearing the waters and getting at the actual truth of things.

Maybe an interim Zumwalt vid outlining future systems in the pipeline for it with a look at some of the things worked out on the Seawolf boats and applied to Virginias as a service life dev template for the Zums, then a pivot in the next vid to either the JVL or B-21 programs?

>>31825930
>not understanding a single engine can have thrust vectoring

>being this retarded

File: c83202d04815a6e97635bfcb318efe2e.jpg (50KB, 736x456px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 736x456px

>>31815210
Lesser nations might like this
>pucara
Think of it as a miniature a-10 thunderbolt
With a cheap price tag of just
>5 million
Each

India could buy a bunch and rekt pakis with them

>>31825865

Hey Dragon, came across this a few days ago

Thought you might be interested, though chances are you've already read it.

https://www.scribd.com/document/323337418/F-35B-UK-Plans-briefing-from-RIAT-2016

https://www.scribd.com/document/323337141/RIAT-2016-briefing-on-QE-class-and-CEPP-plans

>>31824859
I agree that I think France is somewhat crippled in only using a single class of fighter. Smaller nations can get away with it but nations that want to project more military power can't. Most other nations using the Typhoon have or are looking at a second class of fighter for strike purposes (Tornado, Super Hornet, or F-15E). Hell, even Qatar which is ordering the Rafale wants F-15Es as bomb trucks.

>>31824289
Well, they had to try something after JSF killed all of their chances with several nations.

>>31815210
They should buy what they can afford to operate, don't be like Austria and get a bunch of typhoons that they can't pay to keep in the air.

>>31816741
>laughs in freedom

>>31815222
I miss hearing them fly over my house for mach testing....I live very near to AEDC in tennessee, got to hear em break the sound barrier every tuesday and thursday at noon :)

>>31825999
>Not understanding that thrust vectoring isn't worth the expense without two engines that can independently vary their thrust patterns.

File: Su-27SM3_in_flight,_Celebration_of_the_100th_anniversary_of_Russian_Air_Force.jpg (4MB, 5616x3744px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5616x3744px

What are the advantages of 3D vs 2D thrust vectoring?

>>31830676
which plane does that?

>>31830743
Gives you more post-stall yaw authority, which helps if you need to get a guns kill (in the 21st century?) and you mess up your bank angle when you pull into the enemy's turning circle.

The cons are naturally that you carry more weight and have a higher maintenance hours per flight hour ratio / greater risk of engine failure (if a nozzle gets stuck or the pushrods snap, you're probably going to want to shut down that engine).

>>31826040
Also cheers, thought I've at least seen parts of those before.

>>31827917
Gripen, then?

>>31816801
NATO nations could get the Rafale instead of that overpriced POG

>>31831001
>Hey, lets get a plane that's less stealth, has a worse radar, worse IRST, worse sensor fusion, worse weaponry AND costs more!

>>31831447
Indian price of Rafale came down considerably.

>>31832421

And it still costs more.

Also good job on not addressing the other massive issues that he mentioned in that post.