Why no ground Brrrt?

We literally haven't lost ground troops to enemy air forces since the 1950s. If things are that bad our response is most likely going to be strategic nuclear rather than battalion level.

US doctrine is to establish immediate air superiority even before ground troops go in, so the chances of them being accosted by enemy air support is almost nil

We don't need AA when we have air dominance.
Oops, scratch that, "air supremacy".
Uh, did I say "supremacy"? I meant "superiority".

>>32031147

Air supremecy is greater control than superiority, though.

>>32031046
Because they'll never need it. If the Raptors and Patriots aren't enough we're in strategic nuke territory.

>>32031294
>Thatsthejoke.png

>>32031046
Because US never goes to war against someone they can lose or suffer great casualties.

US doctrine doesn't call for them, they establish air superiority first.

Good luck using SPAAGs against NATO/US allies.

>>32031564
This is such shit bait, I'm not including a bait image.

Think about what you've done anon.

>>32031608
How is it bait?

>mexico - clear advantage in every conceivable way
>ww1 - war had already been won by the time US forces landed in europe
>ww2 - us had a clear fleet advantage over japan/US troops landed in Europe again after the tide had already turned
>korea - all intelligence pointed to China not being capable or willing to intervene
>vietnam - apparent overwhelming advantage
>gulf war 1 and 2/afghanistan - actual overwhelming advantage

File: NG-6th-Gen-fighter.jpg (329KB, 1124x541px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1124x541px

>>32031046
>If the US were to engage any military with ground attack aircraft,

... they would start with an air campaign to destroy the enemy ground attack aircraft. And the rest of their air force.

This is obvious stuff, anon.

File: 1472298080319.jpg (18KB, 236x252px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 236x252px

>>32031046
>The US has a notable lack of organic anti-air assets
good thing the US has the first and second largest air forces in the solar system

>>32031782
>korea - all intelligence pointed to China not being capable or willing to intervene
hold up nigger, why do you feel this shouldn't apply to the gulf war?

Literally everyone was projecting massive casualties for the US.

>>32031046

M830A1 is one hell of a shell.


See a helicopter mast over the ridge ahead. Just fire one of these over it and watch as the helicopter dies.

>>32031564
There is no one that can beat the US, so your point is irrelevant

>>32032855
War is a continuation of politics. Although the guy was being facetious, the US plays the long game by making sure it is the number one military power. The best victory is the one you didn't have to fight to get it.

File: 121214114119-patriot-missile-battery-file-story-top.jpg (76KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x360px

>>32031046

>The US has a notable lack of organic anti-air assets.

But that's wrong.

Stingers on infantry and humvees, for everything else there's fighters.

>>32031046
>Why doesn't the US have battalion level air-defense
The same reason Russia does not have S-Ducts or America not having J-20 tier Strike Fighters.

Rampant American corruption and corporate lobbying.

>>32031782
>ww1 - war had already been won by the time US forces landed in europe

9/10 bait, anyone who thinks this has no knowledge of what actually was going on.

File: 1303896696205.jpg (63KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 640x512px

>>32031782

>>32032997
Patriot missle........ but, not on a truck used by any branch of the U.S. military.

>>32035195
Would you stop butchering ellipses? You aren't even explaining in the process. Never mind that you didn't even explain its faults correctly.

>>32032997
The units aren't organic to organizations of any level, nor would they ever be battalion level even if they were. They're something completely different.

>>32031782
Damn y'r dumb

>>32033934
What is up with this S-Duct meme I keep seeing. Like literal S shaped Ducts for intake and shit? lol like Russia can't bend a pipe into an S.

>>32035715
Russia does not have the technological know how to develop stealth.

S-Duct = Stealth

All their chest thumping about S-400 defeating stealth is a lie, they do not know how to make S-Ducts ergo they cannot know how to defeat stealth. America developed stealth and China developed better stealth and yet Russia can only paint old aircraft to look like new and sell it as something more than it seems.

>>32036569
>they do not know how to make S-Ducts ergo they cannot know how to defeat stealth.

You're a fucking moron.
Radar technologies =/= manufacturing and fabrication of planes.

The Russians have always had shit engines, unsurprising that their newest plane follows this trend of having a terrible propulsion system, but the Russian SAM threat is nothing to be taken lightly. On the contrary the Russian SAM threat is the sole reason why SEAD's is now the priority of future plane programs in terms of E-war and literally the only reason for development of bombers in the US. The Pentagon, and every Aerospace company takes the Russian SAM threat and proliferation as one of the foremost threats to the US air doctrine and rightly so.

>>32037186
>The Russians have always had shit engines, unsurprising that their newest plane follows this trend of having a terrible propulsion system,
And yet America cannot even mass produce supersonic anti ship missiles.

Their radar technology is dependent on their development of observability and detection. Unless you are saying that China is providing them stealth planes to test out their radar capabilities. Their IADS is laughable, as shown in the Iraq and Syrian Wars. Israeli planes go in within Stand off distance and fire Popeyes and Buks can't even push them away. Moreso American stealth planes with S-Ducts.

There has never been a successful deterrence made by a Russian provided air defence.

File: MiG-15-Fagot-great-planes-22258883-1200-801.jpg (61KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1200x801px

>>32036569
>S-Duct = Stealth
Check out this stealth fighter!

>>32037286
>And yet America cannot even mass produce supersonic anti ship missiles.

Not this shit again. I'm LITERALLY SHAKING right now. I LITERALLY just CAN'T

>>32037965
Well instead of shaking like a faggot, maybe rebut his argument. You know, like an adult would, you dumb fucking cunt.

>>32037989
>And yet America cannot even mass produce supersonic anti ship missiles.

Because subsonic missiles require less fuel to travel a equivalent distant that a supersonic missile has to travel, because it requires less fuel, you save on weight and space which allows you to bring more missiles to a missile fight.

This is the general direction the Americans are heading for missile designs, smaller, stealthier and harder to intercept subsonic missiles without sacrificing range, so they can pack many more of them on onto a weapon platform than their adversaries.

>>32031046
They don't give us ground brrt cause we'd use it on ground units and buildings for the lulz too often.

>>32037989
because his argument is nonsensical.
>America cannot mass-produce supersonic anti-ship missiles
America could easily mass-produce supersonic anti-ship missiles. It's not inline with our combat doctrine though so we do not do so, exactly the same way we don't mass-produce flame-throwers. Not because we are unable to do so but because we do not desire to do so.

>>32031046
>Why doesn't the US have battalion level air-defense?
americans are stupid

>>32038213
>It's not inline with our combat doctrine though so we do not do so

S-Ducts are not in line with Russian doctrine though so they do not do so

Steam Catapults are not in line with British naval doctrine though so they do not do so

See what I did there? Saying it is not their doctrine does not make it right.

Russia does not know stealth not because they have shitty engines but because they do not have the necessary know how to develop stealth. Not having S-Ducts on their planes signify this.

During the building of the B-2, a question was asked in a congressional hearing, 'Can stealth be countered?'. The Military personnel answered, 'Yes, Aegis can counter stealth'. A Congressman asked, 'If Aegis can counter stealth, that means the Soviets and China will also be able to find our planes'. The Secretary answered, 'Yes, but at a cost'. And at the moment, Russia has not paid enough to counter stealth. Only China has the know how because they have developed S-Ducts.

>>32035061
Sounds like you.

Even when US troops got there few actually saw much combat and the ones that did where primarly under french command.

The threat of millions of fresh troops spooked the german's and made them make some rash decisions. But US troops themselves only arrived after the tide had turned.

File: ustroopsww1.png (86KB, 422x372px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 422x372px

>>32038410
>But US troops themselves only arrived after the tide had turned.
Actually US troops arrived at the beginning of the 1918 Spring Offensive "Ludendorff Offensive" in which the Germans almost turn the war on it's head.

Educate yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Offensive

Pic related, dramatic increase of front line strength with the arrival of US troops and subsequent downfall of Axis superiority.

>>32031046
Well if it was organic, i don't think it would fare as well as being on a vehicle like pic.

File: irony.jpg (40KB, 532x338px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 532x338px

>>32032997
>121214114119-patriot-miss(...).jpg

>>32031066

Vietnam?

>>32031046
The USAF

>>32039109
Don't you mean the Navy? Airforce only likes to show up once it's nice and safe.

File: su-47 (3).jpg (58KB, 990x637px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 990x637px

Oh, it is this rectum annihilated fatnik again.
>>32033934
>Russia does not have S-Ducts
But it does.
>>32036569
>Russia does not have the technological know how to develop stealth.
But it has.
>S-Duct = Stealth
Tell that to X-32.
>they do not know how to make S-Ducts
But they do.
>ergo they cannot know how to defeat stealth
One is not evident from another, try again.
>>32037965
It can't.
>>32038097
Subsonic missiles are also, you know, subsonic.
>>32038213
>America could easily
Whatever makes you sleep at night.
>>32038389
>Russia does not know stealth
But it does.
>they have shitty engines
You know your engine is shitty when it costs as much as 6 Fulcrum engines and requires so much maintenance it is easier to change 2 engines thrice than to fuck with it.
>they do not have the necessary know how to develop stealth
But they do.
>Not having S-Ducts
But they have them.

>>32039115
So why don't they make a fighter with s-ducts? Why do you continue to refuse to post an image of the S-37s inlet so we can all see that it's a true S-Duct and not a half assed piece of shit?

>>32039127
Age old reason of money and why?

Russia's big things recently was the Infantry modernization and T-14 if I remember and I don't even think the T-14 line is back up yet after the economy fallout.

>>32039127
Because it is not a necessity and can affect engine performance. The real question is why are you so upset every time you are reminded that Su-47 has S-ducts?

File: pakfa thing.jpg (72KB, 710x532px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 710x532px

>>32039154
>and can affect engine performance.

If you can't build them correctly, yes.

>The real question is why are you so upset every time you are reminded that Su-47 has S-ducts?

So are you just going to admit that you cannot prove it? Why do you get so rectal ravaged whenever someone asks you to post images?

>>32039163
However you build them, they do affect engine performance. The real question is why are you so upset every time you are reminded that weapon bays and chassis does not portal to another dimension when they cross the duct? Su-47 has S-ducts, deal with it.

>>32039178
I'm still waiting.

File: proofster.webm (889KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

889KB, 320x240px

>>32039178
where are the proofs?

>>32039180
Me too. You are yet to prove Russians invented portal technology and chassis and weapon bays on their planes are leading to another dimension.

>>32032965
I would recommend reading a history of warfar by John keegan, he addresses this whole war is a continuation of politics thing pretty well.

>>32039180
>makes a post asking a question, literally waits the the time limit to make a new post and says still waiting
>acting superior
Not him but jesus, at least give a guy 5 solid minutes. Besides I think the big reason people hit on Russia regarding the S-ducts is that the PakFa is supposed to be their contender against F-22/J-20 and yet lacks technologies that both incorporate.

Saying the Su-47 has S-Ducts as a product demonstrator platform and not a production line platform doesn't change the bit that Russia's marketed production line competitor to the F-22 lacks comparative technologies.

File: 1478713595204.png (2MB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1680x1050px

>>32039115
>gets this anal anguished and thinks only one person makes fun of russia not being able to s-duct like the rest of the world
>still upset about being called a vatnik and keeps trying to force le fatnik mayme

I love this guy.

>>32031608

"Never" is a little too broad, but it's a good statement of US policy. I've no doubt that our military would perform admirably in a massive risky war of attrition, but US political doctrine is to avoid that kind of conflict if at all possible.

It's not bait, it's just sensible. Big bloody wars are expensive in money and manpower. Typically our enemies have political/economic systems that are on a self destructive path anyway. So why bother? We have nuclear weapons, an all-powerful air force, and two vast oceans.

So yah, we only fight where we are likely to win at small cost. Wouldn't you?

>>32039204
>Gets rectum annihilated each time he is reminded that Su-47 has S-ducts
>Still believes only one person is using the word fatnik
There is not reason to be upset.

>>32035195

Pretty sure that's a HEMTT, dude. The Army definitely has those unless we got rid of them last night.

>>32039200
F-22 lacks technologies T-50 incorporates and S-ducts are not some magic thing that all of the sudden makes your aircraft stealth. Once again, look at X-32.

>>32039219
so why can't you post an image of the s37s intakes?

>>32039242
I just go back to my argument any time I get into this... the PakFA could literally be a 5x better plane than the F-22 and until Russia builds more than 7 I won't give a fuck. It's a Hanger Queen and nothing more for the foreseeable future, even more so with Russia focusing on Infantry Mod/T-14 and even those are in jeopardy due to economy woes.

>>32039254
The real question is why can't you prove Russia invented portal technology that allows their chassis and weapon bays lead to another dimension?

>>32039258
This is not even the subject of this discussion. Trust me, no one in the entire world gives a fuck about what you give a fuck about, specifically not in MIC/MOD of any country.

>>32039267
so why are you unable to post a picture of its intakes to prove yourself right? you're trying to prove a positive so it shouldn't be a problem, right?

>>32039278
Good to know the Gustav gun and Maus Tanks totally won the war for Germany.

>>32039279
So why are you unable to post a picture of the portals that hide chassis and weapon bays to another dimension? I'm not trying to prove anything, I am saying that it is you who must try to prove us Russia can bypass the laws of physics and make things like chassis and weapon bays appear and disappear as soon as they cross the duct of an aircraft.

>>32031147
But what if aliens invade the planet with superior aircraft?
How are you going to shoot them down?

>>32039294
you made the claim that it has s-ducts, burden of proof is on you

>>32039283
Good to know you are out of argument. Have a nice day.

>>32039301
The proof is the layout of the plane. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Russia can through the virtue of portal technology hide chassis and weapon bays in another dimension.

>>32039297
If aliens don't have point defense against ground based missiles im going to promise myself to stop doing LSD

>>32038097

Nonsense! Americans do not duplicate superior Russian equipment because they lack the industrial capabilities. The notion that they have different doctrine is propaganda to hide their inferiority. If they had the industry and technology of glorious Rosina, they would not have to settle for their obviously inferior equipment and soldiers.

>>32039309
>The proof is the layout of the plane.

but it is not

you can have engines next to each other and intakes apart for room for a weapons bay and still not be s-ducts ex: every interdictor bomber ever

so again, why can't you just post an image to prove yourself and end this once and for all?

>>32031046
The US Army has an entire branch for Air Defense Artillery.

>>32039305
Having a weapon platform that is already theoretically defeated by it's comparable rival and then only being able to produce it in minuscule numbers does now make it a threat. It makes it an statistical out liar. If Russia could get proper production lines up and running and say at least 100 air frames in service then it becomes a proper contender and/or threat.

As is in case of a theoretical war right now against Russia then the PakFa's would be too valuable to lose and would either sit in severe back line duty or never even leave their hangers.

You are now aware that the United States literally has more Active F-16's than Russia's entire Fighter Force and that's including Su-34's, Experimentals and the entire Naval Forces Fighters.

>>32039242
And the T-50 is twentyish years older.

Also, the X-32 was shut for many reasons, but the was definitely one of them. If you're using that as a comparison you're setting yourself up to fail.

>>32039335
he's pretending he knows stuff, let him be

>>32032769

30,000 Americans dead, and three months. That's what the Senate debated and was deemed worth it. Slightly less than Vietnam and far less than WW2, WW1, or the American Civil War.

About what the Nazis lost conquering Poland.

>>32039321
But it is, since the chassis and weapon bays are crossing the ducts section. So again, why can't you just post an image to prove yourself and end this once and for all?
>>32039340
Good thing that Russia doesn't have any platforms that are already theoretically defeated by it's comparable rival.
>only being able to produce it in minuscule numbers
Coming from the US that had to cut F-22, operates 20 combat capable F-35 after 16 years of flight tests and more than two decades of development and keeps postponing M1A3 this is of course purest gold.
>As is in case of a theoretical war right now
So in a completely fairy-tale scenario that does not exist in the objective reality outside of your imagination and only serves the purpose of supporting your irrelevant argument? Good to know. You are now aware that F-16 are prone to nuclear explosions.
>>32039346
No, T-50 is 6 years old. And no, X-32 was not shut for not meeting stealth requirements.

>>32039297

We have Jeff Goldblum and Apple PowerBooks for that. If things got bad enough, we could even deploy Keanu Reeves for that, though obviously that's a last resort.

>>32032797
>See a helicopter
>SEE
ya gl with that going 60kph down a highway and that chopper is 4km away and only 'masts' itself for 2 seconds which is just long enough to fire that FnF missile and duck back.

Meanwhile that tank gunner is trying his best not to faceplant on his TCS while screaming at the driver to slow down, the TC's on the radio trying to get some more Class 5 and the driver can't see shit cuz he forgot to clean the mud off the periscope and keeps driving off the road.

Ya that high arcing HEAT round won't ever leave the tube.

>>32039443
>weapon bays are crossing the ducts section.

Yet that's wrong as shown by the images you've posted. They clearly go around the weapons bay. The F-111 did the same and it most definitely does not have an s-duct.

So when are you going to prove your claims instead of being booty blasted about it?

The situation is changing.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/under-enemy-skies-armys-multi-domain-battle/

>>32039083
Nope, not ground troops. We only lost pilots and aircraft in establishing superiority.

>>32039443
>Coming from the US that had to cut F-22, operates 20 combat capable F-35 after 16 years of flight tests and more than two decades of development and keeps postponing M1A3 this is of course purest gold.
Ah yes cut the F-22 at 187 Operational aircraft... wait whats that... thats 187 more operational than the PakFa... oh yeah... oh and they have 8 developmental air frames? So we even have 1 extra air frame more? Also wait... why was production stopped? OH YEAH it's because the PakFa and J-20 were deemed non-threats to it along with their current fighter production lines and development that it was deemed that the F-35 was good enough to handle those.

>operates 20 combat capable F-35 after 16 years of flight tests
JSF Program started Nov 1996, First Flight 10 years later in 2006, Today 2016... hmm so 10 years of flight testing... lets look at the PakFa...
Program Started 2002... built off programs delayed, underfunded or outright canceled in 1980's... then combined existing programs to speed run the development... for a approved design in 2009. Thats awesome it's a good thing they planned and budgeted for 150 PakFa's delivered by 2016... oh wait no that's... hmm 7.... and now they aren't expected to get up to a total of 12 aircraft until 2017 due to complex manufacturing and quote " reduce its initial order to 12 jets due to the nation's deteriorating economy,"

Yeah that's totally comparable.

But wait there is more!

>keeps postponing M1A3 this is of course purest gold.
It's almost as if we've been doing incremental upgrades in response to current and evolving threats and countermeasures from actively actually using our Tank units unlike some "other" nations and creating new baseline models such as the M1A1SA, M1A2 SEP (v1/v2/v3) and M1A1FEP. Which then get culminated into a more substantial development capability for the M1A3 baseline as the new technology gets to experience ground use testing.

>>32039083

More Americans were killed by American aircraft than by Vietnamese aircraft.

So American doctrine is to win the war in the air before doing anything ells...

So wouldn't having lots of anti-air equipment be the natural counter?

Is American doctrine really that inflexible?

>>32040404
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defenses

>>32040434

Seems like something you can plan for. If you are like China or Russia or something.

>>32040657
Not really. The "le stealth doesn't work" meme is just psyops because they know it does.

>>32039115
>Subsonic missiles are also, you know, subsonic.

Or you know launch them from a fighter travelling at supersonic speeds.

>>32040671

I would just hide a bunch of stuff underground until the Americans think they got everything.

>>32031095
>don't bring NOD or your back SAPI guys, just more ammo.

works out well every time

>>32040011
I was watching testing for the xm1a3 on Aberdeen last month. It's pretty fucking neat.

>>32031046
>Why no ground Brrrt?
have been reading about Hans-Ulrich Rudel lately.
this was someone who knew a thing or two about coming up against ground based anti-air and this was his most difficult problem to overcome.
maybe time to take a step back?

>>32040714
Too bad satellite overwatch means they know what you hid and where. The PGMs now just collapse the entrances so you have to spend precious time and manpower just digging your own shit out of the ground.

>>32040801

You just use civilian construction projects to disguise the operations.

>>32031046
Part of it has to do with the effectiveness of stingers and other MANPADS these allow for you to just give some guys a couple launchers and bam air defense at a fraction of the cost.

>>32040752
Yeah it's only real issue is turning kinda into the T-72BU vs T-90 issue in where do the incremental upgrades stop and they decide this is everything they want in the new baseline and call it the M1A3. As more and more tech/designs/capabilities come online they keep putting them on M1A1/2 models until they decide what the final upgrade suite will look like.

>>32031564
Shame that person doesn't exist.

Silly vatnik.

>>32039506
not saying tanks are sufficient defence against helicopters but the helicopter you are describing sounds a lot like a longbow which is a US helo and thus isen't really a threat to US tanks

>>32041126
>T-72BU vs T-90

But the T-72BU was renamed because of how T-72 sales were affected by the Gulf War.

>>32040801
You do know that recon-sat does not stay in a geosynchronous orbit? They orbit the Earth with at known intervals that are classified for civilians but would be trivial for any space capable country to figure out. And Global Hawk cannot operate against a opponent that has a IADS. So NATO/US Forces would need to rely on SIGINT/HUMINT to monitor any movment that cannot be tracked during the window.

>>32041208
and has since become a new baseline

File: su-47 (4).jpg (142KB, 1065x635px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1065x635px

>>32039630
>Yet that's wrong
No, it is not.

File: stinger.jpg (49KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x400px

>>32031046
work good enough

File: M163_VADS.jpg (1MB, 2840x1880px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2840x1880px

>>32031046
We likely have them mothballed somewhere.

File: 1232476933001.jpg (27KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 250x250px

>>32040011
>187 more operational than the PakFa
And a couple hundred hell than it was supposed to be before it was cut.
>why was production stopped?
Because they realized how much of an overpriced piece of shit it was.
>First Flight 10 years later in 2006
24 October 2000. So 20 combat ready aircraft after two decades of development, 16 years of flight tests and billions of dollars.
>Yeah that's totally comparable.
It sure is not. T-50 has to stay in the flight test stage for entire another decade and consume a couple dozens billion dollars more to become a program as fucked up as F-35 has been.
>It's almost as if we've been doing incremental upgrades in response to current and evolving threats
It's almost as if you keep raping a design from 70s being incapable of developing a new tank. and even then you struggle, as it keeps getting postponed year after year. And I didn't even mention Zumwalt and LCS yet. Pathetic paper tiger of a country with pathetic useless impotent corrupted MIC. Stay fucking rekt.

>>32038152
Underrated.

>>32040705
Which fighter?

>>32043838
You seriously need to use like Duolingo or something to polish your language skills.

I'm trying to make sense of your post, and all I can get is that you were probably sexually abused as a child.

File: One does not simply stupid russian peasant.png (23KB, 550x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 550x400px

>>32031046
That thing needs some red theme symbols on it and it's ready to be a spam unit in a modern rts game.

File: ky63u75m.png (333KB, 550x800px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 550x800px

>>32043776
Now you gave me a boner
I'm ready to join the mudslimes just to take one home.

>>32044075
It's what happens when American kids who think it's cool to act like a russian bitch get booty blasted by facts and numbers.

>>32031046
Former US Army ADA Fag here. 14R to be specific (MOS was eliminated in 2006). Like it was said above, we've lost no one to enemy air since the 50's. There are ADA battalions all throughout the Army, HIMAD and SHORAD but it's a small field, and like it was said previously, if the ADA assets we have aren't enough, we are probably in nuke territory.

>what is m163 Vulcan?

>>32043838
>And a couple hundred hell than it was supposed to be before it was cut.
Still more than many other nation.

>Because they realized how much of an overpriced piece of shit it was.
No, Robert Gates realized that the F-22 has no competition (still doesn't) and decided that money could be better spent on MRAPs and kit upgrades for the infantry to increase their levels of protection and effectiveness.

>24 October 2000. So 20 combat ready aircraft after two decades of development, 16 years of flight tests and billions of dollars.
Kinda a moot point sense it's in service now. BTW a bunch of these programs started in the early 1980s (their requirements anyways)

>t's almost as if you keep raping a design from 70s.....Stay fucking rekt.

Because theres no reason to fix it if it isn't broken in the first place. Besides, that's how procurment happens in the US military, you have a baseline model, you upgrade the shit out of it for 20 years, eventually when it becomes more cost effective to build a new airframe, you take all of those upgrades in incorporate them into the baseline next generation fighter. It's easier to do that as opposed to building a new plane for every situation. That's one of the reason why the Russians had literally dozens of plane types but only a handful OF those planes. It was a logistical and maintenance nightmare. Not to mention they allowed no time for R and D and tech to mature, so they'd promise the world with their new plane, build only 10 then leave it to rust in a Siberian scrapyard after running into the first issue (which all planes have).

We decided long ago to make all of our anti-air assets out of metal and other such materials rather than living organisms.

>>32035674
Let me think about it............... No.

again........... No.

>>32038152
This. Just like how we shoot Javelins at goat herders with AK47s

>>32043838
Butthurt russian: the post

>>32043699
>shows an image that shows the doors open to the sides and the weapons bay doesn't encroach into that area

just post the intakes already

>>32044065
I'm interested in this

>>32045465
>>32044065
Super Honet obviously

>>32045368
>All of the sudden becomes completely blind as he is confronted with an image showing the chassis and weapon bays crossing the ducts section
Just post the intakes already.

File: german_patriot_missile_launcher1.jpg (884KB, 2832x1888px) Image search: [Google]

884KB, 2832x1888px

>>32039225
Nope its a German Patriot on a Steyr truck.

>>32039204
>that canadian tank in the background

File: faygo.jpg (49KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 728x546px

>>32031046
that's because the US is the reason to have surface to air defense

>>32031782
If you're in a fair fight, you've done something wrong.

>>32045543
>legacy fighter has to do the job because shitty new fighter can't launch internal munitions when flying supersonic. Tough kek

>>32043776
>>32031046
Fuck I can't believe I missed this thread. Former USMC 7212 here (Los-Altitude Air Defense). Was in MOS school at Ft. Bliss right when they were phasing out Avengers, 2004. Fun as fuck job. All our training consisted of setting up concealed firing positions and training in ACID (aircraft identification).

File: avenger-firing-stinger.jpg (317KB, 1728x1152px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1728x1152px

>>32047802
Forgot pic. As for BRRRRRRRRRRRT- each avenger was equiped with an M3P .50cal. Was fuckin sweet.

>>32047777
>Super Hornet
>Legacy fighter
Super Hornets are easily gen 4.5 strike fighters and are too new to just chunk them into a boneyard. F35C is just going to replace the regular Hornets for now. They'll probably replace the Supers when a Growler analogue for the F35 comes out.
Super Hornets are sticking around for another decade or two bru.

>>32047807
Found a video of a live-fire. Doesn't do it any justice, but you won't find any movies shot on anything better than a $150 Canon from 2007. Mech-Warrior simulator was the best part of LAAD.

>>32047830
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln_vC5uZf9I&ab_channel=OPIE

>>32041263
Satellites have never provided real time recon. It's literally they take pictures of an area in one interval and compare them to the previous ones. Large construction projects like underground bunkers are not something that you can totally hide. First, you need to get all the construction equipment there. That means you need a road and logistical system to get all your shit to the site. Then you need to find a place to dump all the dirt you're digging out, as well as the vehicles to carry them. Then, once that site is up and running, you need to rotate staff in and out and keep them supplied, so you still need that road and logistical network in place.

Oh yeah, and if you put your facility in a super remote place, how are you going to efficiently access it and get the stuff stored there to where it's needed in time or before the enemy finds out about it?

Satellite surveillance is literally all about spotting the small details.

>>32047807
And it was absolutely jack shit. Don't try and pretend it was in any way effective.

>>32039335
No we dont, buttface. If OP says we dont, then we don.

>>32039127

well someone made them but I'm not sure about accuracy

http://scalemodels.ru/articles/7031-zvezda-1-72-su-47-berkut.html

>>32031782
>tide already turned before Normandy

>>32047846
>Satellites have never provided real time recon.
>objectively false

File: Patriot mobile platform.jpg (37KB, 526x343px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 526x343px

>>32035195

File: id_hemtt_m983_700_01.jpg (60KB, 504x372px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 504x372px

>>32049751

File: trashducts.jpg (162KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1024x768px

>>32048567
If this is the closest thing we've got, then we can confirm that the Su-47 does not have s-ducts

>>32049794

I'm not the guy/anon you were arguing with,a year ago I was too searching Su-47 inlets with no avail till I started to search stuff in russian.I have purchased a book too but it doesn't show that much anyway,the only people you can ask for some insights are those from Begemot decals and some other company who's into modelling business and have or had some chances to get up close and personal to prototypes and stuff for the sake of crafting some decals,cockpits and resin correction sets which are needed for Zvezda and Hobbycraft kits as they are not 100% accurate