What's the best fighter there is today?

>>32774793
Connor McGregor for sure.

>>32774793
Harrier II.

>>32774793
i like Super Smash Brothers

>>32774793

his name is

JOHN CENA

File: 664893_10151234999218608_836053029_o.jpg (130KB, 1513x1033px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1513x1033px

>>32774793

That really depends on how you calculate it and who you want to fight (afghan air force? USAF?)

>1v1 where the aircraft can allways have the requied ammounts of ground support?
F-22, hands down.

>In a case where cost/limited support/airbase structure is involved?
This is where it gets tricky, as its almost impossible to compare costs between nations and fighter deals.

Another huge thing that is often missed out on /k/ is doctrine, it playes a huge role in what aircraft is selected and what capabilities is demanded.

Anyway, enjoy your 300+ replies by fanboys, vatniks and french people.

Also
>>32774802
Fpbp

>>32774865
It's very likely that the F-35 could locate and target the F-22 before the F-22 could target the F-35. Having an IR sensor is pretty advantageous when fighting against other 5th gens with similar radar and RCS.

>>32774877

It may be possible. Would that mean that the F-35 could win in a 1v1 vs a F-22?
Yeah, most likely. But there is other overall characteristics that the F-22 simply does much better compared to the F-22.

So I want to stick to my original claim of the F-22 beeing the current best.

thelegend27

>>32774802
He wants that missile belt

>>32774793
F-22 Raptor.

>>32774802
gimme your belt.

>>32774793
There's a vid of a Rafale outmaneuvering an F-22 somewhere, so here's that.

All the rest is cold war tier; chinkshit copy, or vaporware.

And the Eurofighter is just a non ckink copy of the Rafale, so here's double that.

>>32777010
There's also videos of Super Hornets outmanoeuvring Rafales, and F-22s regularly outmanoeuvre Super Hornets, so...
F-22 > Super Hornet > Rafale > F-22?

Also the Eurofighter prototype flew the same year as the Rafale prototype.

>>32777104
>Also the Eurofighter prototype flew the same year as the Rafale prototype.

Keyword here being prototype.

Dassaut was shitting rafales while the Eurofighter was still wondering if every country (i.e italy and spain) would be able to pay their share.

>>32777136
There was only a 3 year difference between Typhoon and Rafale IOC

>>32777177

> Only

And it stays that way. The Rafale still have the benefits of three years of additional developement and hotfixing.
It's just the way it is.

>>32777253
>benefits
You mean like no BVR?

>>32774877
>IR locating a jet designed to avoid IR.
Niggga wut?
The f15s weren't able to see the f22 on It even when less than a mile away.

The F35 has a bigger push twoqed lowering RCS when dealing with low frequency radar.

>>32777428
The F-22 could stay out of IR LOS by knowing where the F-15s were and flanking them, they can't do that against F-35s, plus the F-35s have 360 degree IRSTs. Even against the TFLIRs being used on F-15s, an F-22 would be visible from tens of miles; there's only so much you can do to reduce the tens of megawatts of IR energy created by a pair of very powerful jet engines.

File: john cena.gif (1MB, 312x176px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 312x176px

>>32774857

F35 wins in any realistic combat.

The first indication any opponent will have is closing missiles.

Sensors,radar,network and stealth taken together are just insurmountable

>>32777010
Gonna need a source on that vid. I call bullshit

>>32777462
So I'm an aerospace welder and assembler.
I make parts for the f119 AMD f135 engines that power the f22 and F35.

They are designed from top to bottom to Lower heat and RCS.
Everything about the F35 and f22 reduces temps that would show up on IR.

It's almost as if engineers with millions of dollars already figured that out.

>>32777814
It's kinda not bullshit, but the f22 pilot said he stopped due to low fuel levels.
So it's not really a win persay.

The French also ignore the fact they lost 6/7 engagements with the f22; in a senero that would never happen in real combat

>>32777814

It was 'killed' as part of a pitched battle training scenario.

Reaperguy has said before that when raptors show up to redflag and are allowed to play how they want, everyone gets BTFO

File: Chinas-JY-26-UWB-radar[1].jpg (29KB, 582x385px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 582x385px

>>32777428
And Boeing's competitors have all poured funding into electronic detection systems. It's an area that the West lags behind in because of its decision to go down the stealth route. It's a forgone conclusion that the F-35's stealth will be negated long before its service life is over.

>>32777734
The F-22 could just do a fucking 20G barrel role and dodge the missile.

File: original[1].jpg (370KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 1600x900px

>>32777864
It's a shame you guys couldn't make an engine for the F-35 that was strong enough to push the little bugger faster than a Cessna.

The F-35C takes 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2. Its top speed is Mach 1.6, and it can't reach that without burning all on board fuel. An F-16 can reach Mach 2.02.

Honestly, I'm embarrassed for you.

>>32779244
>I'm retarded and here's my post proving it!

>>32779291
CAN'T TURN. CAN'T CLIMB.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-impact-381683/

>Turn performance for the US Air Force's F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 sustained g's. The F-35B had its sustained g's cut from five to 4.5 g's, while the US Navy variant had its turn performance truncated from 5.1 to five sustained g's. Acceleration times from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 were extended by eight seconds, 16 seconds and 43 seconds for the A, B and C-models respectively. The baseline standard used for the comparison was a clean Lockheed F-16 Block 50 with two wingtip Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAMs. "What an embarrassment, and there will be obvious tactical implications. Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5," another highly experienced fighter pilot says. "[It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft."

>>32779244
The C variant is a carrier based fighter though, and the F-16 is not. How would the F-16 compare to the A variant in that case?

>>32779360
You would compare the hornet instead. I bet that's even faster.

>>32779244
>Implying the F-16 doesnt have the single best TWR on Earth

Here we go again with the old 4chan "If it's not the absolute greatest thing ever made in this specific category its an abject failure also you like men"

>>32779409
Actually the hornet and F-35 performance specs are quite similar

File: 1455017482129.png (170KB, 575x350px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 575x350px

>>32779336
>2013 article that has nothing to do with even Block 3i capabilities
Fucking Spreyfags...

>>32779336
>2013
>>>/warisboring/

File: Screenshot_2016-08-11-00-27-50-1.png (320KB, 933x603px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 933x603px

>>32779244
I didn't design it you twat, I just build parts for it.

Also, the f35c is the slowest and is also something like 10% of all F35s built.

The f35A(the parts I make) is far quicker than a f16 in acceleration and energy recovery.
It can also out accelerate the f16s without using reheat.
Although the RAM limits top speed.

Regardless, a new variable bypass's engine is being designed as we speak.
Initial tests show it should make 55,000lbs of thrust.

Now fuck off

>>32777864
All of that's nice, but irrelevant; an F-35's EOTS is definitely going to see an F-22 from a lot further than half a mile away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU

>>32777814
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGuWadoTgkE

>>32777899
Pretty sure the fight was called off due to them breaching the altitude floor (to prevent crashes, pilots aren't allowed to dogfight below a certain altitude; most fights end up dropping in altitude as both jets trade altitude for energy).

>>32779244
An F-16 can reach Mach 2 if it's carrying nothing but internal fuel and a pilot, and is able to glide in to an airport after running out of fuel almost immediately. An F-35 can reach Mach 1.6 with a full internal payload and the fuel to fly over a thousand nautical miles. The F-35A's top speed is also unknown; the B and C variants have the same engine, but more drag (considerably more for the F-35C), and yet they can both reach Mach 1.6.

>>32780342
>F-35's EOTS is definitely going to see an F-22 from a lot further than half a mile away:

There no way to verify that.
As only a select few know that Information.

>First post predicted thread would be full of Rafale fanboys
>He was totally right

pottery

>>32779182
>Chinese meme magic "quantum" radars.

>>32780453
Well given that the F-22 appears bright as day to a FLIR set about a mile away, seems pretty obvious to me.

>>32780342
>An F-35 can reach Mach 1.6 with a full internal payload and the fuel to fly over a thousand nautical miles

"An interesting factoid, one of the USMC test pilots mentioned this little tidbit—they have to use a modified Rutowski profile in order to get the F-35B and C up to Mach 1.6. Basically, you do one push over, unload the jet and accelerate, get up to 1.2, turn and repeat until you hit 1.4 Mach, turn and repeat till you hit Mach 1.6. It just barely gets there and barely has any gas left over afterwards.""

>>32780648
The F-35B only has like 2/3 the fuel of the F-35A, is heavier, draggier, etc.

>>32777428
Avoiding IR is a shitload harder than avoiding EM.

Jamming IR is (or at least was) easier, but jamming and complete avoidance are different things (related though they may be).

>>32774793
i think you just posted it...

File: T-50-3.jpg (41KB, 618x399px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 618x399px

>>32774793

>>32774857
kek

File: 1425036549991.jpg (840KB, 3600x2400px) Image search: [Google]

840KB, 3600x2400px

in a pure unrealistic 1v1 scenario with equal everything?

F-22 i think

Other than that?

Well, let's put it this way. If there was one fighter that was objectively superior to everything else, everyone would be using that (unless you can't for political reasons)

I'm sure there are some roles and places still today that an F-4 would be a very viable option

It all depends on what people need
>how much money do you have?
>How many planes do you need?
>who do you plan to bomb/shoot down/ fly into?
>What equipment does the enemy have?
>how far does the plane need to fly?

TLDR: There is a time and place for all planes

>>32775110
>>32774857
>>32777519
Go back to 9geg or /b/, and never come back

>>32781163
>Well, let's put it this way. If there was one fighter that was objectively superior to everything else

That would be the f22

>everyone would be using that (unless you can't for political reasons)

The US will never export it

>>32781121
wrong.

>>32781206
what i tried to say that the F-22 is cool and all, it's still an immensely expensive aircraft. It's wayyy too expensive for most air forces, even if the US decided to sell them, which they won't

>>32781169

Suck my cock, dude.

>>32774802
fpfp

>>32779495
>>>>/warisboring/
do you have a problem with this blog?

i always thought it's analysis was good t b h

>>32781477
>i always thought it's analysis was good t b h
It's shit-tier pop-analysis. David Axe, the owner and EIC, is personally responsible for the article intentionally and maliciously reading a test flight leak as if it were a dogfight flyoff between the F-16 and F-35, which is what it is not. He destroyed his site's credibility.

>>32781512
>>32781477
Axe also published classified intel on how the US was using remote IED jammers, causing insurgents to change tactics

>>32781169
^^^

>>32781450
kill yourself, dude

>>32777010
>Euro fighter a copy of the rafale
Rafale was created out of spite after France left the eurofighter program

>>32774877

This guy gets it. The F-35, for all it's assorted shittiness, is really the only "true" 5th-gen in operation today.

You could make a pretty compelling argument that the F-22 and J-20 are more like the T-50 than not, and are basically gen 4.5+++ fighters with stealth, supercruise, and supermaneuverability, but an avionics/ECM suite that's barely more developed than the same setup on most late 4th gen fighters like the Typhoon, the Rafale, the Rhino, and the later F-15s.

So while the F-22 will utterly push the shit in of any fighter that gets within the range of its sensors, there's a real chance that it could get rekt by the F-35's far, far more advanced avionics suite (picture: a flying AEGIS system) before it even realized that the baby raptor was even there.

Which is why I hope to god that Trump scraps 6th gen and instead orders a slew of "Tranche 2 F-22s" upgraded with the F-35's RAM, avionics, and 3D thrust vectoring F135 engines. THAT aircraft would me a monster that could supercruise at nearly Mach 2, fry SAM installations and enemy radars with its ECM capabilities, and fly circles around ANYTHING that the chinks or ruskies could slap together.

>>32781677
Nah.

We can do better than the raptor for a pure A2A bird.

Integrated lasers, self healing composites, etc, not to meantion kinimatic increases and an overall more aerodynamic shape (get rid of those tails for extra stealthyness)

F-22 is cool, but its 90's cool. Still cool, but not future cool.

American MIC is an tech powerhouse.

Keep pushing the bar.

>>32781689
We just need to figure out how to pay the $300m a pop that the 6th-gens will cost.

I honestly think that the upgraded F-22 type aircraft is exactly what the USN needs for a fleet defense bird.

Hell, an F-23 derivative scaled up to A-5 Vigilante size, swinging an F-14-diameter AESA and with the ability to internal carry 2-4 standard missile derivatives would be a perfect AWACS/J-20 killer.

Fuck maneuverability, it's all about long legs, supercruise, sensor capability, and all-out weapons load.

>>32779479
My god, I love this picture.

>>32781477

He's a massive hack, aside from what is already said. Was listening to a podcast with him on talking about the Royal Navy, I had to shut it off after the first two minutes because he couldn't even get some fundamental facts right, including saying things that weren't remotely true.

He's either lying through his teeth or willfully ignorant. Both even.

>>32781565

There's no need to be upset.

>>32779336
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HVY6Fdc2CM&ab_channel=TheC.A.B.Show

>>32777010
>Eurofighter is just a non chink copy of the Rafale
Other way round Pierre.

>>32781707
>USN

Ahh, a naval fighter for the F/A-XX program.

Sure, give it the ram from the F-35 though. Still can get rid of the tail, we have moved beyond such things.

But the airforce's 6th gen?

That shit needs to be top fucking tier.

>>32774877
While this is true in perfect conditions, one should always remember that IR sensor detection thresholds are heavily affected by the following:
>target aircraft exposed aspect
>cloud cover/obstruction
>ambient climate conditions which affect visual/IR long range fidelity, including haze, smog, temperature gradients, even higher ambient temperatures at lower altitudes could dramatically affect detection range

It's an extremely useful tool, but like all tools it is always subordinate to tactics and training. How it is employed is always far more important than if it is employed. A magic kill button it ain't.

>>32783428
Normal IRST also has significant fov restrictions.

>>32783462
Absolutely true, though I was responding to a specific comment about the F-35, which has a highly advanced, very high resolution FLIR/DLIR/IRST sensor package in the EOTS plus a roughly 4th-gen IRST equivalent 360 degree spherical coverage system in DAS. This means that, in the F-35 and as a rough example, an F-35 might be able to detect a target with basic IR VLO features approaching head on from its rear quarter at 1/15th or less the distance it might detect the same jet directly ahead flying directly away from it.

Like I noted, it's all about atmospheric conditions, from what direction the target is approaching and what aspect the target is showing. With the older IRST systems, you get the added complication of very limited FOV coupled with the need to mechanically "scan" the optics across the available FOV.

>>32783462
Good thing the EO-DAS/EOTS combo isn't a normal IRST then.

>>32783428
That was true for legacy systems, far less so now.

Still a factor but its not like it renders it nigh useless like before.

>>32781163
I just love the Gripen. I don't know why, I just do.

>>32783608
gripen a cute, yeah, i'll give you that

>>32783605
>Still a factor but its not like it renders it nigh useless like before.
You can't process around basic facts of physics like EM obstruction (clouds), diffusion (haze, smog) and diffraction (haze/humidity, temperature/humidity gradients, etc.). Yes, it is far, far better now and modern systems are much better at picking out temperature differentials at a great distance, but the above factors still are and will forever be significant considerations for as long as these systems are operating in atmosphere.

Maybe our space superiority fighters in three centuries will have it different.

>>32783685
>You can't process around basic facts of physics like EM obstruction (clouds), diffusion (haze, smog) and diffraction (haze/humidity, temperature/humidity gradients, etc.).
I should note that IR and optical band radiation (as opposed to Radar, for instance) is far more susceptible to these types of interference in our particular atmosphere, specifically the affects of particulate, water and temperature interference, due to the nature of both the wave itself and the types of sensors we use to detect it.

>>32783685
>>32783717
It's still better than not having it (F-22) or having a limited version (EF-2000, Flankers, etc.)

>>32783727
Obviously. And the same limitations of physics also apply to their less sophisticated systems and at a higher rate of detection threshold deterioration.

Read the reply string. I'm clearly referring to the limitations of all IR/optical systems, and I'm noting that it is an extremely useful system. But again, as I already noted, >>32783428
>It's an extremely useful tool, but like all tools it is always subordinate to tactics and training. How it is employed is always far more important than if it is employed. A magic kill button it ain't.

>>32774793
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HVY6Fdc2CM&ab_channel=TheC.A.B.Show

>>32783685
and VHF radar has never improved to compensate for those things, no sir.

>>32781707
>Fuck maneuverability, it's all about long legs, supercruise, sensor capability, and all-out weapons load.
Don't you have to get on a junker to bomb london hans

>>32783983
>radar suffers from anywhere near the same issues in similar conditions as optical/IR sensors
>radar wavelengths are affected at anywhere close to the same transmission fractions by the same phenomena as optical and IR transmission

Anon...
Please, take a basic physics class. They both affected to some degree. The difference is that the hard ceilings on transmission fidelity through the mediums is far, far lower in the IR/optical spectrums than it is for radar wavelengths.

You will never, ever get 100nmi detection thresholds through cloud cover with IR/optical sensors. Period.

File: 28F6FBA600000578-3092724-F_16_Fighting_Falcons_covered_in_sealing_paint_sit_in_the_field_-a-1_1432305969034.jpg (217KB, 962x719px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 962x719px

ITT a bunch of dumbasses debate the air to air combat capability of aircraft that in all likelihood will at most face export models of generations old fighters in the air, and several year old SAM systems with unimpressive crews from the ground, before they are permanently relegated to realm of museums and aircraft graveyards.

File: target practice.jpg (91KB, 962x528px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 962x528px

There were debates like this a few decades back.

Now these elegant war machines are just prisoners of Rome, awaiting the jailor to collect them from their cells beneath the Colosseum floor.

>>32780193
Is ADVENT going to fly on the B-21?

>>32780193
yeet