*blocks your path*

File: Sukhoi Su-27 1.jpg (577KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 2560x1600px

>>33096428
*Shits on you in WVR*

File: BUK_M2.webm (1MB, 458x342px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 458x342px

*Removes you from my path*

File: sprey2.jpg (24KB, 228x172px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 228x172px

>>33096428
LMFAO you can't block shit with that turkey of a paperweight.

Get the FUCK out of here, lockmart shill. You're officially on notice.

>>33096474
R A R E S P R E Y

A

R

E

S

P

R

E

Y

>>33096428
*cuts funding*

nothing personal, LockMart.

File: 6jJrZBP.jpg (31KB, 600x452px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x452px

>>33096428
As a Stein voter, fuck the JSF.

File: 1487306897557.jpg (48KB, 480x740px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 480x740px

>>33096579
>As a Stein voter
>reddit image
>muh 1.5 gorillion
Congratulations, here's your (you)

Cool samefag thread, bro

>>33096428
*teleports internally*

>>33096690
9replies 8 posters. ya try again.

>>33096579
One dumb thing doesn't justify another

>>33096452
>2017
>developing a plane focused on BFM performance because you can't into Stealth and good sensors

I'm quivering in fear

>>33096457
>Those 1970s systems
>Implying it can detect US stealth

>>33096562
>Shit that'll never happen

>>33096579
>As a Stein voter, fuck the JSF.
>Unelectable psycho vote
>Repeating the trillion meme

>>33096705
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZZcUdIdAt0

File: F-117_canopy.jpg (374KB, 1024x761px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1024x761px

>>33097674
>implying some jewish spy hasnt already sold the exact specs and exhaust signature to the chinks and soviets already
>implying they cant just load a missile with this exact target signature on it to shoot you jew cucks out of the sky

>>33097752
>implying the jew spy wont get released by americas second black president in ms michelle obongo in 2020

>>33097752
>Implying that's how radars and missiles work.

>>33097752
>sold the exact specs and exhaust signature to the chinks and soviets already

Exhaust signatures? Soviets? What the fuck are you smoking and why aren't you sharing?

File: 1445472277744.jpg (21KB, 353x251px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 353x251px

>>33097968
> good little goy! keep throwing them off track
> 4 shekels have been deposited into your Goldman Sachs account

>>33097752
>one out of tens of thousands of sorties goes wrong oh no stealth is useless!!!!!
Fuck me I guess soldiers in general are useless because they die all the time

>>33097752
It must be shitposting hour.

>>33097067
Good, you should be.

>>33097968
its exactly how they work, see aeroplanes have something called a radar signature and sometimes you can detect these signatures if you know what to do. jews tell chinks and russians what to do in exchange for money and they get this information by stealing it from their greatest ally america. so you see retard i perfectly explained historical and future events for you there dumb goy

>>33098275
But don't jews already control all of the money? Why would they risk themselves to get more of it?

>>33098275
>Shit that isn't happening can get around the basic laws of physics!

>>33096428
>*blocks your path*
*call it fat and watch as it bursts into tears made of dollar bills*

File: golfballs.jpg (148KB, 400x423px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 400x423px

>>33098275
Planes have signatures, but radars don't detect planes by looking for signatures - you don't "defeat stealth" by looking for the Mach 1 marble-sized object; radars rely on filters to function and small objects get thrown out by the filters. If you remove those filters, you need to try and track and discriminate a billion tiny radar returns, many of which will appear to be moving, whether that be 1m/s or 9999m/s.

Here's another way to put it; you've removed your search filters and are seeing tons of "golf balls" when you look at the screen / each time the radar scans an area. Which golf balls in these 2 images have moved? Which ones haven't? What speeds have each moved at? You can't tell because you removed the filters and allowed in too many mathematical unknowns.

>>33097752
>triggers /k/
It's super effective!

>>33098812
And how many are just birds and how many are using your radar to get your location to put a warhead on your forehead?

File: smug catte.jpg (45KB, 259x208px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 259x208px

>>33096452
>WVR

File: 1485651468569.jpg (107KB, 1000x980px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1000x980px

>>33097752
F35 welder here
So hers why ur wrong.

>implying some jewish spy hasnt already sold the exact specs and exhaust signature.
1. The exhaust signature is dynamic.
It's always changing.
It's also so small that f15 irst can't determine its location

2. The exhaust is literally designed to hide thermal and radar signatures far better than the f22 ever could.

3. The F35 knowsexactly where SAMs are and how to avoid or destroy them.

Those SAMs will never even get close to the f35 let one be able to fire One.

>It's almost as if the F35 was designed to avoid and destroy ground targets...

File: 1479774516038.jpg (368KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 2048x2048px

>>33099573
>f-15 IRST

File: 060618-n-8492c-066.jpg (1MB, 2887x1844px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2887x1844px

>>33100239
It's called Talon HATE

File: Screenshot_2017-02-23-22-18-47-1.png (412KB, 728x624px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 728x624px

>>33100239
The f15s that went up.against the f22 and now F35 in training simulations had irst pods.

>>33100254
>>33100268
Well I'll be darned, that's pretty neat

>>33099573
Welder? How does being a welder give you special knowledge?
Right, it DOESN'T.

>>33100268
F-16's get them too.

File: 157.jpg (90KB, 680x757px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 680x757px

>>33096457

File: bud2rocv15o6iigk2e2z[1].jpg (33KB, 636x424px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 636x424px

How do planes deal with the massive amount of lift their wings generate at high speed? Do they just perpetually angle the nose down, like a helicopter?

>>33100349
That's what trim is for.

>>33096452
*Shoots you over shoulder*

>>33100307
Maybe because I weld and assemble the parts that keep the F35 exhaust any sense sensors.

You haven't built any ram coated F35 part, so your opinion is invalid

>>33100360
>Implying a pilot would perpetually adjust trim as airspeed changes

>>33100408
Man, it's almost as if these amazing things called computers exist....or he'll, even mechanical systems for such circumstances.

Fuck bro, use your head.

>>33100408
I did not imply that.

Are you saying that F-15 pilots don't adjust trim for specific Airspeeds?

File: 1481078935330.jpg (113KB, 551x634px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 551x634px

>another thread of burgers being baited
Nice

>>33098812
Lol Nigger that's easy.

Just find a flying golfball in the sky.

>>33100503
>implying the OP is not pro burger

>>33100445
Yes, I'm quite literally stating that outright.

>>33096452
The F-35 would shit stomp the Su-27.

>>33100408
When you are actively maneuvering there's no need to trim as you use the extremes of control surfaces and when you cruise you usually have a constant speed that you can trim for.

>>33100632
Anon in 1965: "The F-4 Phantom will shit stomp North Vietnam's motley collection of MiG-17s and its handful of MiG-21s!"

>>33101023
I'm confused, didn't it?

>>33101023
The only reason the US lost Vietnam is because they weren't willing to commit mass slaughter.

>>33101070
>>33101023

It did stomp them, but not for the same reasons that the F-35 will stomp its opponents.

File: NNIIRT-Nebo-M-CONOPS-1.png (130KB, 768x492px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 768x492px

>>33096428
*surrounds you*
You're in a wrong neighbourhood, kid.

>>33101070
No, not really. The kill ratio was definitely in the US's favor, but the air war over the north was nowhere near the blowout that the USAF and USN thought it was going to be. Yes, a lot of factors went into that, not just which aircraft were being used, but that's *always* true. And yes, the US scored some huge victories when they had competent leadership (Operation Bolo comes to mind). But remember that there's a reason why the USAF's Phantoms were redesigned with a 20mm cannon in the nose. And remember that it was sheer embarrassment at having let their kill ratio slip that caused the Navy to open Top Gun.

>>33101082
Interesting notion, but the context is air warfare, how do you commit mass slaughter in the air? US success in air was low because they didn't shot down enough airliners (if they were even that common back then)?

>>33098275
>>33097752
You guys don't get it
Radar is like looking at a a silhouette of the entire sky. If the aircraft is stealth their silhouette is extremely tiny.
If you do not have a modern radar system you won't even see it
If you have a modern radar system you have to make a judgment call on whether thats an enemy aircraft or just "noise".
Advanced algorithms can detect the difference but fortunately the americans are the only ones with that technology.

>>33100349
aircraft are typically designed to fly at highspeed. Its more like you have to angle up more than usual to fly slow and u are almost perfectly flat at your desired cruise speed (which is generally high for a jet fighter).

>>33100408
>>33100445
actually pilots trim constantly all the time. generally you trim once you have found a comfortable cruise speed.
you then fly comfortably at a specific altitude at a specific sped. no more trim needed
once in combat all focus is on the enemy. no trimming

>>33100349
Fighter aircraft are usually not aerodynamically stable, they don't maintain their course and require constant adjustment anyway.

>>33100521
But there's a million golfballs in the sky when you view it in radar.

>>33100349
Fighter jets have small wings relative to their size (in comparison to civilian planes and airliners). They also generally have no or very thin airfoils, meaning that if they fly straight and level, they don't generate much lift at all.

Because of that, fighters angle their nose and wings upwards - air gets deflected down off their wings As they fly at higher subsonic airspeeds, they point their nose more towards level.

When they're flying supersonic, their wings become even less efficient - you're flying less by deflecting air off the bottom of your wings and more by deflecting more air downwards with your shockwaves / shockcones than upwards.

>>33100268
>>33100254
Its actually available for all "legacy" aircraft as a plug and play. Requires fairly minimal modification to the actual aircraft.

>>33101099
not often talked about, but not classified:

Radar deception:

Modern aircraft can spoof radar returns by "sniffing" or sampling the incoming signal, and feeding it back as they see fit.

Its fairly easy to punch a hole in a vulnerable part of a radar screen. Hell. Every country has that tech that is one of the big 3, or even smaller guys like the euro nations.

>>33101291
>Trying to jam russian radars
Lel.

>>33101311
>Implying Russian radars aren't woefully behind the computing trend

>>33101318
>Implying they are
Lel.

>>33101323
>Implying they're not
Lel.

>>33101023
m8 you messed up, the F-4 dominated the MiGs, regardless of how much it still was a clearly superior jet. Just like the F-35 will be, have you not seen red flag or the USMC weapons testing? 23:1 and 24:0 ratios against F-16s and other gen 4 jets are pretty enormous, far more than the Su-24 or even most likely the Su-35 could do. So I would probably take a minute to actually look into the F-35 if I were you, no memes, no jokes, it's actually a really decent jet.

It should be sense they dumped so much money into it after all.

>>33101311
Russian radar is severely out dated, ask India when they had a look at the pak fas they received when they considered co producing them with Russia (Since Russia can't afford to)

>>33101358
Indians are just butthurt because Russia won't share any additional technology with them.

>>33096428
*laugh and shoot it down*
>it's another Fail35 insecure fanboy thread

File: rms_mald_pic06_lg.jpg (405KB, 1400x1000px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1400x1000px

>>33101099
>F-35 uses Shadow Clone Jutsu
Psssh... Nothing personnel kid

File: S-125 Neva.png (214KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 2000x1333px

>>33096428

>>33096579
>stein voter

oh boy I thought I'd have to respond to that but your opinions are and forever will be worthless so I guess I don't need to :^)

File: Su35 TVC.webm (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>33096428
>*blocks your path*
*fly circles around it until it runs out of fuel and goes back to carrier crying and calling mommy*

>>33098812
This pretty much sums up arguing about stealth with every dumbass no matter if it's on /k/, youtube or IRL.

You can explain whatever you want and how it works, give analogies, explain why something isn't possible and so on, the dumbass will just reply with "YES BUT S-400 CAN SEE STEALTH".

File: 123454667545.jpg (37KB, 666x360px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 666x360px

>>33101099
Just cruise missile the UHF truck or network truck

>>33102021
You... don't understand how this works, do you?

>>33101169
>Interesting notion, but the context is air warfare, how do you commit mass slaughter in the air? US success in air was low because they didn't shot down enough airliners (if they were even that common back then)?
American air power was only really challenged from ground defenses. If mass slaughter was in order, the US could have just wiped out Hanoi from the map via mass air raids.

>>33102069
No, not really. But I'm going to keep posting anyway.

>>33101149
>But remember that there's a reason why the USAF's Phantoms were redesigned with a 20mm cannon in the nose.
Because they didn't train their pilots right or select the best for the job, the gun was just a band-aid.

>>33101149
The USAF added a gun, the USN did a better job training its pilots.

Guess which improved its kill ratio.

>>33101910
>flying circles around something you have to be within missile range to detect

>>33102500
300km? That makes huge circles...

>>33102612
An Su-35 isn't detecting a F-35 at 300km.

>>33097674
Serbians detected your """"stealth""""

>>33102718
>1983 stealth
Russian tech can only shoot down rustbuckets and Serbs had to eat over 9000 bombs before shooting one down!

>>33102673
He said "within missile range" to be detected, so...

>>33102772
They shot it down because it flew IN FORMATION, DURING THE DAY, AT THE SAME TIME EVERY DAY. The Squadron Commander fucked up big league.

>>33102781
The F117 stealth tech was also near 20 years old in 1999. Serbs could only manage to shoot one down. Sad!

>>33102772
>>33102776
>>33102789
nice burger insecurity circlejerk

>>33101222
>Advanced algorithms can detect the difference but fortunately the americans are the only ones with that technology.
its almost as if this is what i was referring to when i said jewish spies would be stealing these and selling them for shekels

>>33102718
>Serbians detected your """"stealth""""
Because they knew exactly where it would be and got really fucking lucky the bomb bays were open.

>>33102803
>hurr facts are hard durr!

File: 1480821812864.jpg (187KB, 1024x660px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1024x660px

>>33096428
*flies right past*

>>33100349
Cl= Cl(0)+Cl,α • α+ (other effects)
Cl= coefficient of lift
Cl(0)= coefficient of lift at 0 angle of attack
α=AoA
Cl,α= d(Cl)/d(α)
So you just adjust your AoA to make your lift match your weight.

>>33101023
Late war USN: 13:1 K:D.

File: 96k6 pantsir-s1 & 9k330 tor-m2 & 2k22m1 tunguska-m1 & 9k35 strela-10sv.jpg (176KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 900x600px

>>33102021
>cruise missile
Yummy, send more.

>>33096579
Would you rather have:

An unstoppable fleet of uber-aircraft

Or

Tax payer subsidised womens studies and sociology degrees

>>33102776
>flying circles around something with a missile coming to say hi

>>33100408
Unless you need to constantly manuver, you'd trim whenever you change airspeed. In fact, most of the time if you want to save energy, you can literally fly by trim. But most modern planes can do all this automatically.

>>33103253
>Tax payer subsidised womens studies and sociology degrees
This is the real reason taxpayer funded degrees would lead to bamkruptcy. Not because it's unaffordable in the short term, but rather because the ROI is NEGATIVE. People going to study shit which there isn't a market for remove themselves from the working population, thus doing terriblw things to the economy. Anyone getting a degree should be required to think if it's worth its cost.

File: american feminists.png (2MB, 561x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 561x800px

>>33103253
>Tax payer subsidised womens studies and sociology degrees
In the enemy country? Sure, it's much more destructive in the long term.

>>33100349
Airplanes aren't real you naive fools. They are an illusion created using a clever combination of trains and laughing gas.

File: 1486337484144.jpg (37KB, 513x626px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 513x626px

>>33101865

fuck I laughed

File: 1393836719083.jpg (57KB, 591x641px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 591x641px

>>33103202

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electronics_High_Power_Microwave_Advanced_Missile_Project

How does it feel always being two steps behind?

>>33103792
It's what happens when you turtle up in planning rather than focus on winning.

>>33103792
>But muh lasers
Oh no, all Russian air defence surface to air inflatable plastic boats are doomed. Fuck off to /v, laserfag.

File: laughing operator.jpg (25KB, 480x220px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x220px

>>33103830
>muh lasers

GEE WHIZ LOOK WHO'S TALKIN

https://sputniknews.com/military/201608041043945230-russian-laser-weapons-analysis/

shoo, commiecuck

SHOO

>>33103194
Yes, late war - i.e. after having seven years to get their shit together. Again, that's why Top Gun was established in 1969; by 1972, the results of that (and of all the other lessons the US military had learned the hard way in the first years of the war) were finally starting to show. The thing is, the Navy wanted - and expected - results like that right off the bat, not seven years later.

>>33101353
US military exercises have a long history of fudging results to make expensive new weapons systems look good.

>>33103856

Not that it matters, the NVA air force was always too small to appreciably affect the outcome of the air campaign. Their "good" K/D ratio just reflected more success at harassment operations without taking too many casualties to make it worthwhile.

SA-2s (sometimes operated by Russians, and often operated with Russian guidance and oversight) was the real air threat in Vietnam; that, and tons of AA guns.

>>33103849
The very article you posted explains why laferfags should fuck off to /v. Fuck off to /v, laserfag clown.

>>33103873
We should hang out. I too enjoy making up things with no sources.

File: colon three satori.png (15KB, 290x290px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 290x290px

>>33103873
>f-ff-fudged r-r-esults! It's all a meme! A meme!
>LIES OF LOCKHEED SHILL REEEE
>M-M-MUH NEBO, GROWLER DOESN'T EXIST

>>33103883
>doesn't know the difference between lasers and masers

What's it like being illiterate?

File: screenshot091.jpg (106KB, 657x370px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 657x370px

>*blocks your path*

...that was a lot easier than I thought it'd be. You know, I've been prepared to work my ass off to get close to you, but that wasn't necessary. Cпacибo!

>>33100319
Thank you based BUK

>>33103899
>thinks is makes a difference
What is it like eating a missile with your face from 0 to 400 km? Fuck off to /v, laserfag.

File: skeptical operator.jpg (28KB, 284x288px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 284x288px

>>33103952
>being able to fry SAM radars from five miles out doesn't make a difference
>when Russian doctrine is to protect SAM batteries with Pantsir/Tor systems for point-defense against cruise missiles and PGMs

Why don't you fuck off and let people who know what the fuck they're talking about converse, fucknugget? Shouldn't you be in school right now?

>>33103914
>R-77 uses grid fins

forwhatpurpose.png

>>33103980
>being able
Whatever makes you sleep at night.
>five miles
>relevant
Fuck off to /v, laserfag.

>>33104014

Try actually reading the wikipedia article, fuckface. The program mounts a high-power maser on a cruise missile. Five miles is far too little range to send in a manned platform. A cruise missile, on the other hand, has to actually impact the target, so over that last five mile stretch it's vulnerable to specialized point-defense SAMs optimized to nail non-cooperative targets flying nap of the earth. Combining the maser and the missile gets the maser close enough, and eliminates the need for the missile to run that last gauntlet of fire to eliminate the target.

Stupid cunt. Go back to /b/.

>>33102483
Both were improvements, although yeah, better training was by far the better one. Which is kinda my point, actually. Let's say you re-ran Bekaa Valley, but this time you had the Israeli pilots flying MiGs and the Syrians flying F-15s and F-16s (we're going to assume here that aircraft transition training is taken care of, and that everything else stays the same as it was the first time). Do you think we'd see the same results? Of course not. Yeah, it might not be *exactly* the same - the Israelis might lose a few aircraft this time instead of none, and the Syrians might lose a few less than they did, but the overall result will be about the same.

So how would the F-35 do against, say, the Su-30? Well, who's flying them? Russia has Su-30s, and so does Eritrea. But I guarantee that F-35s pilots would have a way different experience fighting Russian-flown Sukhois than they'd have fighting Eritrean ones. But again, that's part of the problem with the USAF/USN's attitude. They think because they cleaned house against fighters flown by Iraqis or against Serbian MiG-29s that were falling apart because of a lack of spare parts, that they'd kick just as much ass against Russia or China. History says that this kind of overconfidence tends not to end well for America.

File: ob_ca1051.jpg (72KB, 1024x662px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1024x662px

>>33096428
lol, I'll let it flee if it can. Poor thing.

>>33103980
Grid fins are superior in every way.

>>33103316
Then only subsidize the ones with a positive ROI?
>t. engr major

File: snrk.png (4KB, 210x230px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 210x230px

>>33104105
>They think because they cleaned house against fighters flown by Iraqis or against Serbian MiG-29s that were falling apart because of a lack of spare parts, that they'd kick just as much ass against Russia or China

Yes, that's why America focuses so much on symmetric ACM training with massive annual air-combat exercises like Red Flag. Mmmhmm. Overconfidence.

Remember how the F-4 Phantom didn't have a gun? And they had to hastily jury-rig a shitty gunpod powered by a wind turbine, and aimed with a grease pencil line on the cockpit canopy? Well, the F-35B doesn't have an internal gun, to save weight. Lockmart also developed a stealthed gunpod for the plane, with full HUD/sensor integration, at the same time they were developing the aircraft.

It's almost like... they remember, or something....

>>33104047
>Combining the maser and the missile gets the maser close enough
>five miles
>close enough
Fuck off to /v, laserfag.

File: MOAB_grid_fins.jpg (114KB, 1024x767px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1024x767px

>>33104140
>Grid fins are superior in every way.

Well I dunno about inferior/superior, but they do look cool, I'll give them that.

>>33104179

You do understand the CHAMPS is designed to damage or destroy very radiation-sensitive radar arrays designed to pick up minuscule energy returns from hundreds of miles away, right? It's not a Martian death ray. Stop acting like an autistic fuckwit.

>>33103880
>Not that it matters, the NVA air force was always too small to appreciably affect the outcome of the air campaign. Their "good" K/D ratio just reflected more success at harassment operations without taking too many casualties to make it worthwhile.

All true, but still doesn't change my point. The mighty United States military never achieved unquestioned air superiority over North-fucking-Vietnam. You can explain it however you like, and blame whoever you like. Yes, I acknowledge that there were political factors like LBJ's colossally stupid and self-defeating rules of engagement that heavily contributed to that. Yes, the Americans learned their lessons and were WAY improved when they came back to North Vietnamese skies in 1972. None of which changes what I said, or the fact that it was a massive embarrassment which should never have been allowed to happen.

>>33104105

>But again, that's part of the problem with the USAF/USN's attitude. They think because they cleaned house against fighters flown by Iraqis or against Serbian MiG-29s that were falling apart because of a lack of spare parts, that they'd kick just as much ass against Russia or China.

Somebody better call the Air Force and tell them that they believe this.

>>33104246

>The mighty United States military never achieved unquestioned air superiority over North-fucking-Vietnam.

How many US ground troops were lost to attacks from enemy aircraft during the war?

>>33104203
>from hundreds of miles away
Fuck off to /v, laserfag.

>>33104151
>Yes, that's why America focuses so much on symmetric ACM training with massive annual air-combat exercises like Red Flag. Mmmhmm. Overconfidence.

And the US military never trained before Vietnam? Sure they did - and then actual combat experience showed them where the holes in their training were and what they needed to do differently, which actual combat has a tendency to do. Again, that's *why* they established Top Gun in the middle of the war. The thing is, we don't know what the next war will reveal as far as deficiencies in our equipment and training. That's the kind of thing you only find out once bullets start flying.

>Remember how the F-4 Phantom didn't have a gun?

Yes, I do. I brought it up earlier in this thread.

>>33104265
>How many US ground troops were lost to attacks from enemy aircraft during the war?

RTFP. I said North-fucking-Vietnam, not South-fucking-Vietnam.

>>33104265
American troops weren't truly safe from airplanes until after McCain was shot down and captured.

>>33104322
Well... yeah... that's kinda true.

>>33104316

Indeed. I never implied otherwise.

>>33104309

>And the US military never trained before Vietnam? Sure they did

Kinda, but not really. Training for fighter pilots prior to Vietnam was practically non-existent.

>>33104357
Okay, so what's your point? There weren't ever any US ground troops in North Vietnam. So yeah, you can't lose any to attacks from enemy aircraft if there aren't any there to lose.

>>33104246
>The mighty United States military never achieved unquestioned air superiority over North-fucking-Vietnam.
But that's wrong. By 1972, Linebacker II was completely unmitigated. NVA air defense was completely weak by then and they had to actually negotiate for ceasefire.

>>33096579
Uh...
>subsidize college even more than now
>college costs skyrocket, just like healthcare.
>conservative estimate of ~$30000 per year per student
>subsidize the current 20 million students (Google it)

That's 20*10^6*30*10^3 = 600*10^9
Thats 600 trillion dollars per year. PER YEAR. And what so you thinkbwill happen once college is free? You won't get ~70% of people going to college, you'll get closer to 90-95%, because why wouldn't you get paid for partying for four years?

Even taking the heavily subsidized 10000/yr cost of a state school, that's $200T per year.

All of that coming out of our pockets to help some hipster can graduate with a shit degree that produces nothing of value for the economy. And that's not even taking into account the opportunity cost of tying most people up for four years while they do nothing at all.

>>33104367
>Kinda, but not really. Training for fighter pilots prior to Vietnam was practically non-existent.

Well, no, that's not true - it just wasn't enough of the right kind of training. Again, the Navy finally came up with the right idea and established Top Gun to provide the training needed - four years into the war, after suffering a bunch of losses that should never have happened in the first place. But yeah, there was lots of training before that.

File: _363-.jpg (33KB, 436x618px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 436x618px

>>33104289

I literally can't tell if you're pretending you can't read, or if you're actually this retarded. Welcome to modern /k/. Enjoy your stay.

>>33104309
>And the US military never trained before Vietnam? Sure they did - and then actual combat experience showed them where the holes in their training were and what they needed to do differently

You have a fundamental lack of understanding of what the problem was. The USAF/USN was trained extensively in the weapons they expected to utilize - air to air missiles. There's always been a common theme in America of placing too much faith in technology and firepower (D-Day being a classic example.) You realize that most of the "Century series" fighters of the late 50s/eary 60s had no gun, either, and were entirely reliant on a small number of very early, very primitive air to air missiles for intercepting Soviet nuclear bombers? It was a long-standing confidence that Vietnam permanently killed. If you think American war-planners are "overconfident," you should look up the military commentaries on Operation Allied Force, where they extensively examine how a handful of obsolete SA-6s were able to give allied ops so much trouble, and how said problems can be overcome in the future with better tactics and approaches. The F-35 has been in the news a lot lately because they're putting the aircraft through its paces in the most grueling simulations/exercises they can cook up to see what it's capable of, and it's even surprising them.

"Americans are dumb and overconfident" has been uttered by pretty much every regime we've ever destroyed. Remember that.

>>33104422
Holy shit I can't type when I'm angry.

>>33104403
>But that's wrong. By 1972, Linebacker II was completely unmitigated. NVA air defense was completely weak by then and they had to actually negotiate for ceasefire.

Not really. Don't get me wrong here - like I said before, the US military was WAY improved by Linebacker II and did WAY better than they had in 1965-1967. And it also helped a lot that Nixon didn't saddle them with as many stupid rules of engagement as LBJ did. But they still never achieved what could reasonably be called "unquestioned air superiority". It was still a slog, and American warplanes were still in serious danger right up until the end.

>>33103392
sauce on the pic?

>>33104425
Welcome to /k. Now fuck off to /v, laserfag.

>>33102673
Not sure that any plane can detect something at 300 km.

>>33104450
>But they still never achieved what could reasonably be called "unquestioned air superiority"
What is your definition of "unquestioned air superiority?" Zero takedowns? Stop living in fantasy land.

>>33104425
>You realize that most of the "Century series" fighters of the late 50s/eary 60s had no gun

Uh are you high bruh on the Voodoo and the Delta Dart didn't have a gun the Delta Dagger entered service without one but later was refit with one much like the Phantom

>>33104425
>You have a fundamental lack of understanding of what the problem was. The USAF/USN was trained extensively in the weapons they expected to utilize - air to air missiles. There's always been a common theme in America of placing too much faith in technology and firepower (D-Day being a classic example.) You realize that most of the "Century series" fighters of the late 50s/eary 60s had no gun, either, and were entirely reliant on a small number of very early, very primitive air to air missiles for intercepting Soviet nuclear bombers? It was a long-standing confidence that Vietnam permanently killed. If you think American war-planners are "overconfident," you should look up the military commentaries on Operation Allied Force, where they extensively examine how a handful of obsolete SA-6s were able to give allied ops so much trouble, and how said problems can be overcome in the future with better tactics and approaches.

Okay, I actually agree with all of this.

>The F-35 has been in the news a lot lately because they're putting the aircraft through its paces in the most grueling simulations/exercises they can cook up to see what it's capable of, and it's even surprising them.

You'd have heard basically the same shit about the anything in the US inventory in 1964.

>"Americans are dumb and overconfident" has been uttered by pretty much every regime we've ever destroyed. Remember that.

And since 1945 there have been how many of those? Well, Saddam and the Taliban, I guess. But are we really ready to call those wars "victories"? Remember "Mission Accomplished"? Not quite, as it turned out. Again, the perils of overconfidence.

>>33104505
>It was a long-standing confidence that Vietnam permanently killed.

Actually, let me revise that. I agree with everything you said in that passage EXCEPT the word "permanently". The US military has a long tradition of getting its ass kicked in wars, learning some hard lessons, remembering them for 20 years or so, forgetting them, getting overconfident, getting involved in a new war, lather, rinse, repeat.

The US remembered the lessons of Vietnam for a while, then forgot them and went back to their default attitudes about basically everything, which explains why Iraq and Afghanistan went the way they did, and why the F-35 is the new F-104.

>>33104422
It's billions.But the USA still would be fucked.

>>33104383

>Okay, so what's your point?

That no American troops were lost to enemy aircraft during the Vietnam war.

>>33104581
>long tradition
Hasn't it happened, like twice, in the past 100 years? And I wouldn't even call both of them "getting their asses kicked" since Vietnam was lost mainly due to politics.

US Airpower is unmatched, nigger
>Serbia didn't count
>Iraq didn't count

Didnt some Soviets get absolutely curb stomped by some Israelis?

File: 747.jpg (34KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x450px

>>33104581

>The US remembered the lessons of Vietnam for a while

[citation needed]

>then forgot them and went back to their default attitudes about basically everything

[citation needed]

>which explains why Iraq and Afghanistan went the way they did

[citation needed]

and why the F-35 is the new F-104

[citation needed]

>>33096457
You have confused 5th generation aircrafts for boeing-777 comrade. Cyka blat. Drown your mistake in vodka.

>>33096428
*plays ECM flute*

>>33096457
*Removes self from crime scene*

>>33100319
Thank you based BUK

>>33101327
Quality /k/ discussion

>>33104151
>Remember how the F-4 Phantom didn't have a gun? And they had to hastily jury-rig a shitty gunpod powered by a wind turbine, and aimed with a grease pencil line on the cockpit canopy? Well, the F-35B doesn't have an internal gun, to save weight. Lockmart also developed a stealthed gunpod for the plane, with full HUD/sensor integration, at the same time they were developing the aircraft.
Only Air Force had the gun, and it didn't help them much.

>>33104505
>And since 1945 there have been how many of those? Well, Saddam and the Taliban, I guess. But are we really ready to call those wars "victories"? Remember "Mission Accomplished"? Not quite, as it turned out. Again, the perils of overconfidence.

So according to your logic, America (which has fought modern wars/campaigns against weak opponents) is destined to lose against the likes of China and Russia (who have fought no wars against anyone in modern times, with the exception of a three-day curbstomb against Georgians using outdated versions of the same tech.)

Super cool story bro

>>33104581
>which explains why Iraq and Afghanistan went the way they did,

Our overconfidence is to blame for our chosen allies being in power in both countries, with a continuing US force presence squatting on any insurgents and shitting down their throats? With Iraqi forces currently retaking Mosul as ISIS fighters are being piled up like cordwood?

Fucking eurofags need to leave

>>33104309
>And the US military never trained before Vietnam? Sure they did - and then actual combat experience showed them where the holes in their training were and what they needed to do differently, which actual combat has a tendency to do. Again, that's *why* they established Top Gun in the middle of the war. The thing is, we don't know what the next war will reveal as far as deficiencies in our equipment and training. That's the kind of thing you only find out once bullets start flying.
Uneducated.

The Air Force pre-Vietnam was dominated by Strategic Air Command and its nuclear bomber, Zero-Defect, Flying Safety culture. Pilots were "Universal", that is, they were assigned to slots pretty much at complete random/based on whose ass they kissed most. Promotions were rigged long enough to keep Tactical Air Command out of senior leadership.

The Navy before Vietnam was already in the business of extremely dangerous flying - aircraft carrier ops - and considered that "Flying Safety" shit ludicrous. They also specialized their pilots, and the best went into fighters. Top Gun was just another layer of improvements so advanced tactics could be disseminated out to squadrons.

The AF's entire time in Vietnam was pretty much shit, BUT! Because they ruled that everyone would fly a tour before a second one was forced, and fighters became far more operationally important than bombers, suddenly TAC officers were racking up combat time, combat awards, and commands above rank that put them in a superior promotability position over SAC officers. And it was through those experiences in Vietnam that first the Aggressor Squadrons, and later Red Flag revolutionized US training methods to get pilots past the "first ten" missions in a less dangerous environment that would ensure far higher probability of survival.

>>33104423
>Well, no, that's not true - it just wasn't enough of the right kind of training.
No, it was basically non-existent. No real air to air practice, Air to ground was "check the box" flying to the range and releasing ordinance, and an excessive obsession with zero-defect flying safety.

>>33104425
>You have a fundamental lack of understanding of what the problem was. The USAF/USN was trained extensively in the weapons they expected to utilize - air to air missiles
Except a consistent problem through all of Vietnam was AF pilots not being trained as well as Navy pilots to actually fire missiles inside the envelope. Guns had jack shit to do with it, Navy pilots just actually knew how to use their weapons.

File: 1485181619437.jpg (49KB, 656x465px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 656x465px

>>33104425

>The USAF/USN was trained extensively in the weapons they expected to utilize - air to air missiles.

USN pilots were. USAF pilots were not.

>>33104144
Oh yes, definitely.
>t. Mech. Eng. funded by the state

>>33104699
>Didnt some Soviets get absolutely curb stomped by some Israelis?
That's a very broad brush you're painting with, but yes. Rimon 20, the Soviets flying for the Egyptians got ambushed by the Israelis and suffered a pretty embarrasing defeat.

>>33103040
>they just simply guessed the planes exact location 50 miles away
gee wow what lucky serbs

>>33105159
31-37 miles. And they guessed nothing. That plane had been flying that exact same route daily for weeks, they knew exactly where to set up and aim. And still only got lock because the weapon bays opened when they broke doctrine and kept trying for a lock after it was too risky to keep trying.

>>33103914
>AIM-120C equivalent

Neat, but subpar.

>>33104151
The F-35's gunpod is angled downward like the A-10's gun.

>>33105239
>What the fuck is K-77M?

>>33100349
There is an angle where no lift is generated, the faster you fly the closer you get to that angle.

>>33096579
tell me, do you know how internet works? your candidate thought that its damaging to kids because "radiation"

>>33105201
yep, a method was developed to detect your stealth and the planes weakness was exposed

which leads back to my original point:
>what THE FUCK do you think is going to stop the israelis from stealing all the information about the f22/f35's stealth weaknesses and then selling that information to china and russia

you know, the fucking kikery they are world renowned for?

Remember?

1993: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/israel-accused-of-selling-us-secrets-to-china-1510406.html

2005: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/13/usa.israel

2013: https://www.algemeiner.com/2013/12/22/u-s-furious-with-israel-after-sale-of-advanced-military-technology-to-china/

You love giving these kikes free tech that they can then turn around and sell to your enemies for nifty profits

>>33105256
And the rounds are optimized for ground attack in both versions anyways. If they really though an Air to Air gun was of value they'd have just used the M61 Vulcan and it's SAPHEI rounds meant to shred and burn aerial targets.
>Multi-purpose fuzeless round with an incendiary charge in the nose setting off the HE behind it with a slight delay to maximize lethality against aircraft. No tracer or self-destruct. A zirconium pellet at the bottom of the HE cavity provides additional incendiary effect.

Instead of a 25mm APEX.

>>33105309
>yep, a method was developed to detect your stealth and the planes weakness was exposed
Which was easily fixed by not being stupidly complacent. You know, the one absolute glaring flaw that let it happen.

>Selling secrets about their own equipment to the people who make what their opposition uses
Moron.

>>33104699
>US Airpower is unmatched, nigger
Yup - it's unmatched against small, poverty-stricken countries that are still recovering from other wars. Is that who the F-35 was designed to fight?

>>33104724
>[citation needed]
My citation is the entire fucking Iraq War, which managed to somehow completely ignore the Powell Doctrine despite the fact that Colin Powell was one of the people responsible for it.

File: kuzznnn[1].jpg (61KB, 800x410px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 800x410px

>>33105365
>Implying Russia and China don't have tiny, poverty-starved militaries that are meaner on paper than in real life

>Implying we don't plan around potentially fighting a non-existent near-peer

>"We're not interested in a fair fight with anyone," General Hodges stated. "We want to have overmatch in all systems. I don't think that we've fallen behind but Russia has closed the gap in certain capabilities. We don't want them to close that gap,”

>>33105398
>Long-term police action occupation and nation building is the same as force on force warfare

>>33104930
>China and Russia (who have fought no wars against anyone in modern times

lrn2history, then come back and talk to me. Start by Googling "Soviet War in Afghanistan" and "Third Indochina War".

>>33105415
Chechnya, Georgia, the ongoing invasion of Ukraine...

>>33104944
>Our overconfidence is to blame for our chosen allies being in power in both countries, with a continuing US force presence squatting on any insurgents and shitting down their throats? With Iraqi forces currently retaking Mosul as ISIS fighters are being piled up like cordwood?

If you consider the current state of Iraq and Afghanistan to resemble anything that could honestly be called "victory", then whatever you're drinking, order me a case.

>>33104971
I think you must have misunderstood my point, because all of this is true, and all of it helps to make my point.

>>33104998
>No real air to air practice, Air to ground was "check the box" flying to the range and releasing ordinance, and an excessive obsession with zero-defect flying safety.

That's precisely what I said - not enough of the right kind of training. Pilots trained plenty do do stuff like PAR approaches in shitty German weather, they just didn't train to do stuff like dogfighting against MiG-17s.

>>33105405
>>Implying Russia and China don't have tiny, poverty-starved militaries that are meaner on paper than in real life

Yeah, Napoleon thought that about Russia, too. So did Hitler, and he had the piss-poor Russian performance against Finland in the Winter War as evidence. How'd that work out for him?

>>Implying we don't plan around potentially fighting a non-existent near-peer

Then the F-35 is a waste of money.

>>"We're not interested in a fair fight with anyone," General Hodges stated. "We want to have overmatch in all systems. I don't think that we've fallen behind but Russia has closed the gap in certain capabilities. We don't want them to close that gap,”

So let me get this straight - a general who wants some shiny new weapons systems (and maybe a seat on the board of LockMart after he retires) made an argument in favor of them? Color me shocked.

>>33105408
>>Long-term police action occupation and nation building is the same as force on force warfare

I guess you missed the part where the Iraq War wasn't supposed to turn into that at all. It was going to be a cakewalk, we were going to be greeted with flowers and kisses, and Iraq was going to look like Connecticut with sand in a couple of years. We were going to keep some nice big bases like we do in Korea and Japan, sure, but the idea that it would turn into a long slog of a war against determined insurgents? That was NOT part of the plan.

>>33096428
>*blocks your budget*

>>33105594
This is what happens when you allow yourself to be lead by people who are sincerely not racist.

File: refueling1.jpg (732KB, 2874x1917px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 2874x1917px

>>33105405
>kuzznnn[1].jpg
Nigga, did you just try to imply something with this pic?

>>33105429
>ongoing invasion of Ukraine
You mean Syria. Because this is where the Russian military actually is in real life, as opposed to hohol fantasies about them fighting Russian military, not a bunch of barefooted vatniks and volunteers.

>>33105398

>My citation is the entire fucking Iraq War

Can you point out times during the Iraq War when air power failed to deliver?

>>33105564
>Yeah, Napoleon thought that about Russia, too. So did Hitler, and he had the piss-poor Russian performance against Finland in the Winter War as evidence. How'd that work out for him?
Conquest and Fight to Defeat are two different modes of conflict.

>Then the F-35 is a waste of money.
In what way? Why is is not better to relieve 3-4 designs with a singular one that is more efficient at all older tasks AND is superior in near-peer conflicts?

>So let me get this straight - a general who wants some shiny new weapons systems (and maybe a seat on the board of LockMart after he retires) made an argument in favor of them? Color me shocked.
>derp de deerp derp

>>33105634
How many times did the Kuznetzov have to get towed back to port in the med again?

>>33105658
>Implying Russian forces aren't in Ukraine

>>33105896
is just paratroopers getting lost tovarish ))))))))))

>>33105365
>more 4.5 gen fighters than Russia and China, most at parity with Rus and Chin's top aircraft
>more 5th gen fighters than Russia and China
>more combat experience than Russia and China


>somehow worse than Russia and China
Great reasoning skills

>>33104998
SAC was into zero defect flying. TAC planted plenty of fighters in peacetime (roughly a squadron a year minimum until the late 1980s!) until it focused more on training and maintenance. I enlisted in 1981 and saw some of the changes first hand on the maintenance side. The practice of "chasing stats" i.e. getting the best sortie stats by any convenient means gradually gave way to more accurate reporting and more emphasis on training and quality throughout system life.

Newer fighter airframes are more reliable and easier to troubleshoot and maintain. (Much love for Phantom but they were maintenance hogs.) Sorties are easier to generate because tasks like engine changes are easy and fast with fewer opportunities to fuck shit up.

Now all that's left is to get the meatsacks out of the cockpits and on the ground. I expect much of that tech to come from the automobile industry whose software must make much more complex decisions than a meat pilot. That day isn't far off.

http://www.newsweek.com/artificial-intelligence-raspberry-pi-pilot-ai-475291

>>33100632
Not in a dogfight, that's for sure.

Also, it's the Su-35 now.

>>33105896
>How many times did the Kuznetzov have to get towed
Once, in 2012.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLSaA3pO6Bc
>in the med
It was in the Bay of Biscay.
>>33105896
>Russian forces in Ukraine
Please, point me at Russian Air Force sorties against Ukraine. Maybe Russian Navy deployment? Ground forces? Anything? No? Piss off then.

>>33105994
>Please, point me at Russian Air Force sorties against Ukraine. Maybe Russian Navy deployment? Ground forces? Anything? No? Piss off then.
Pathetic goalshifting. Btw not that guy, before you sperg out.

>>33105256
>The F-35's gunpod is angled downward like the A-10's gun.

So what? It's only a difference of a few degrees, and mounted guns in most every aircraft have servo motors to allow a few degrees of flex now. Plus:

>ground-attack strafing with a 25mm gun in a super-expensive stealth jet

nigga we got choppers for dat

>>33105415
>Afghanistan was modern

k

>>33105429
>fighting obsolete versions of their own equipment

k

>>33105430
>only my very specific definition of "victory" counts

k

>>33098275
why would the jews sell the secrets to a plane they are going to use themselves?

>>33105256
The A-10's gun literally aims above the nose, because it gives a better firing arc with less downwards deflection at optimal attack range. Angling a gun downwards is retarded unless you plan to kill the enemy by burning them with your afterburner.

>>33106323

I'm not sure why you think being a stealth jet means the gun isn't going to work.

>>33106391
>The A-10's gun literally aims above the nose

By aiming upward you mean a shallow angle downward.

>>33106395

Simple, SHORAD systems. Self-propelled AA guns, man-portable shoulder-launched AA missiles, even asswipes firing rifles in the air. There's ALWAYS another one of those little fuckers waiting to nail you. That's exactly why attack planes like the A-10 and attack choppers are as heavily armored as possible; it's assumed that they WILL take hits. That's also why they're built cheap as possible; losses are inevitable. Same reason the IL-2 was the most produced aircraft in military history; so many were lost, despite being an armored beast of a plane.

The entire point of the F-35 revolves around solving those problems. The stealth lets it tool around at 50,000 feet without getting a long-range SAM rammed up its ass, and the new FLIR/EOTS system is so advanced precisely so it can actually find ground targets from high up without having to fly around with its nose in the grass.

Sending a hideously expensive jet designed to kill ground shit without getting too low, down low, to strafe things, is mondo fuckin retard tier.

>>33106550

I'm quite certain that the air force wouldn't have required a gun in the design if they had no intention of using it.

Will the F35 get wingtip Missiles or will it have to use pylons?

File: BRRRRT and her new friend PSHEW.jpg (313KB, 2832x2540px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 2832x2540px

>>33096428
*fucks your shit up while also BRRRTing whoever managed to steal worst jet*
fuck outta here

>>33103253
Not having to go abroad and kill poor people first so one could go to college would be nice...

>>33104203
>You do understand the CHAMPS is designed to damage or destroy very radiation-sensitive radar arrays designed to pick up minuscule energy returns from hundreds of miles away, right? It's not a Martian death ray. Stop acting like an autistic fuckwit.
>He doesn't know about AGC...
But anyway, there's a thermal channel for completely passive mode of operation.

File: 767-fedex-1280x720.jpg (60KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1280x720px

>>33096428
*crashes into you because of your stealth*

Didn't think that one through, did you mr VLO fighter? Now the DOD has to pay FedEx monies. Thanks a lot. That load of christmas toys will never reach the wal-mart :'(

turn on a goddamn transponder so atc can see you, asshole

>>33106579
>I'm quite certain that the air force wouldn't have required a gun in the design if they had no intention of using it.

You're right about that. Even F-15s at Roberts Ridge ended up using their cannons for strafing. When you get right down to it, you can only fit so many PGMs on an aircraft - but even a small gun drum gives you several bursts of fire, and they can be placed on target very carefully, when troops are in close contact. Guns are still put on attack choppers for this exact reason.

But I don't think the primary reason for the gun is ground-attack, and I doubt it'd be optimized for that. Guns are typically a last-ditch guarantee for air to air combat maneuvering; there's a ton of things that can go wrong with missiles, plus, sidewinders on an F-35 have to be carried externally, so if an F-35 in a clean/stealth config gets unlucky and has to defend itself at close range, it'd definitely be down to the gun. For both air AND ground, a gun as a backup is indispensable.

>>33106827
The gun is there for ATG. The software and ammunition is designed for that specific job.

Guns on a VLO sensor shooter are stupid anyway.

>>33104581
>The US remembered the lessons of Vietnam for a while, then forgot them and went back to their default attitudes about basically everything, which explains why Iraq and Afghanistan went the way they did, and why the F-35 is the new F-104.

One potato has been deposited in your vatnik bucket.

>>33104581
>The US remembered the lessons of Vietnam for a while, then forgot them and went back to their default attitudes about basically everything, which explains why Iraq and Afghanistan went the way they did,

Because neocons failed and continue to fail understand the limits of US military power and failed to come up with a coherent strategy or grand strategy.

>>33101272
>But there's a million golfballs in the sky when you view it in radar.
I'm skeptical stealth aircraft have "golfball" RCS all throughout. Isn't the majority of stealth derived from actually making use of structural design elements such as aligned edges to reflect/bounce as much radar energy away from the original direction? Then that means at any given time there's another direction where the stealth aircraft isn't so stealthy or even yet, actually bigger in RCS as you are redirecting rather concentrated energies in another direction. Then there's the question of which frequencies you are lighting it up with- different frequencies react differently with matter after all, much like how the retinas in our eyes respond to visible light and only that and we can't see microwaves or X-rays.

>>33106827
>You can only fit so many PGMs on an aircraft.
Yes. Thanks to SDB's, though, that number is pretty fucking large.

>>33107176
Stealth planes also have radar absorbing coating, so it's not just about dispersing radar energy.

Nevertheless, every major airpower is working on ways to improve detection ranges of stealthy aircraft - and any major progress in that area will for sure be top secret and not be discussed on a Japanese anime forum.

>>33107176
The "golfball" figure is for Frontal RCS, though RCS from quartering and side aspects would still be very low. They're optimized for X-band.

RAM quality is also important, but I'm not positive exactly how much of an aircraft's RCS is dependent on RAM rather than shaping.

>>33107292
>Stealth planes also have radar absorbing coating, so it's not just about dispersing radar energy.
>>33107305
>RAM quality is also important, but I'm not positive exactly how much of an aircraft's RCS is dependent on RAM rather than shaping.
From reading varied stuffs I got the impression stealth is 90% or even higher shaping, and the 10% or less RAM. Which makes sense, since if its the opposite or its any higher for the RAM stealthy coatings applied to 4++ gens would make em approach stealth aircraft RCS which isnt' the case.

>>33105309
>1993: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/israel-accused-of-selling-us-secrets-to-china-1510406.html
Accused, nothing ever came out of the accusation.
>2005: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/13/usa.israel
Literally the US getting buttblasted over Israel selling Israeli systems to China. If you don't know how the US tries to control the world's markets, I suggest you look it up. Start from the US-mandated EULA for software. I highly doubt any US tech was involved in that sale.
>2013: https://www.algemeiner.com/2013/12/22/u-s-furious-with-israel-after-sale-of-advanced-military-technology-to-china/
A. Nice source you've got there.
B. A high-ranking civil servant lost his job over this questionable deal, and you claim it's intentional and deliberate. Wew.

>>33106598
It has pylons specifically for missiles near the wingtips, Falcon/Hornet style wingtip pylons are not stealthy.

>>33106323
>mounted guns in most every aircraft have servo motors to allow a few degrees of flex now.
You are unequivocally full of shit.

>>33107176
>Then that means at any given time there's another direction where the stealth aircraft isn't so stealthy or even yet, actually bigger in RCS as you are redirecting rather concentrated energies in another direction
This is true; however, the aircraft are designed in such a way that those aspercs should necer be exposed for long enough to be useful. For example, the flat underside of the F-22, when seen perpendicularly, is a fuckhueg radar reflector. But you might see that for a few msec when it flies above, not nearly enough time to launch a missile at it, and it's gone so fast that a missile couldn't lock. One of the biggest advantages of stealth isn't detection range against groynd intercept radars, but against effectors. Terminal guidance radars can't hit what they can't see, and stealth tech is pretty effective against small x-band radars.

>>33104124
>This is what Rafael fags actually believe

>>33107292
>every major airpower is working on ways to improve detection ranges of stealthy aircraft

It's called infra red detection and it's anything but rocket science. A F-22 shines like a christmas tree from hundreds miles away.
I've never understood this "stealth" joke.

>>33107559
>But you might see that for a few msec when it flies above, not nearly enough time to launch a missile at it, and it's gone so fast that a missile couldn't lock
I don't think its that quick of a transition since even miniscule angles of deflection translate into relatively huge arcs when translated across hundreds to tens of kms distance, which means you are sweeping that bit for much more than a few milliseconds. And even if it were that short, its more than enough for a computer to scan and store to its memory to note where something just popped-in-and-out, at which point it diverts most of its scans at that area where it'd get something.

>One of the biggest advantages of stealth isn't detection range against groynd intercept radars, but against effectors. Terminal guidance radars can't hit what they can't see,
Which is only good for SARHs, or any other semiactive radars out there, not so much for active ones nor ones with thermal seekers.

>>33107670
>And even if it were that short, its more than enough for a computer to scan and store to its memory to note where something just popped-in-and-out, at which point it diverts most of its scans at that area where it'd get something.
The point is that while it is enough to attract attention, it isn't enough to get a firing solution. And as such surfaces are by design exposed for very short times, the extra scanning isn't going to help as the 'reflector' is no longer exposed. So getting a firing solution is near impossible- with a single 'blip' you don't know range, altitiude, heading, speed, or any other important intercept parameter to any degree of accuracy. So you don't really know where to send an interceptor. And even when you do know where to send it, the lower signature of the target greatly reduces the interceptor's NEZ, for active systems just as much as passive. While thermal imagers like the AIM9x and Python 5 are less affected by stealth, they are inherently shorter ranged, so you need a far more accurate solution and midflight guidance. And active-radar based missiles are going to have a really hard time seeing the plane and engaging.

Add in the fact that with reduced signatures comes increased effectiveness of flares, chaff, towed countermeasures and other goodies, and you get that even after detection by ground radars stealth aircraft have a significant advantage over older designs.

>>33107819
>Add in the fact that with reduced signatures comes increased effectiveness of flares, chaff, towed countermeasures and other goodies

This. Stealth is very important even if it can't make you totally invisible. It makes you harder to find, harder to fix, harder to track and even harder to shoot. In other words, stealth characteristics contribute directly to a platform's direct combat ability.

>>33106523
Wierd how the bore points above the nose indicator on the hud,then, eh? Weird how to shoot at targets with the backup gun peppers you have to point the nose below the target. I would have thought that precluded the gun pointing down, but I guess not.

>>33107670
While true (at some distance; reflection lobes off RAM-filled surfaces aren't all that wide), the jet only has to change its flight path ~10 degrees, if that, to move that reflected beam away.

Also, most radars take several seconds to sweep an area, so this talk of milliseconds is a bit redundant.

>And even if it were that short, its more than enough for a computer to scan and store to its memory to note where something just popped-in-and-out, at which point it diverts most of its scans at that area where it'd get something.
Problem with that is that you'll run into issues like radar reflecting off the stealth jet, bouncing into terrain and reflecting back to the radar, but from a different direction. You'll also have EW to contend with - if your system is too eager to track any potential target, it'll get tied up chasing ghosts.

>Which is only good for SARHs, or any other semiactive radars out there, not so much for active ones nor ones with thermal seekers.
SARH / ARH. Thermal seekers aren't used on long range atmospheric missiles due to thermal saturation. Once they get around that, they'll have DIRCM to deal with as well.

>>33107598
If it's afterburning at Mach 2 maybe.

>>33107176
No one is suggesting that it's golfball sized (or rather, marble sized) all round; the point is that if you lower your noise filter, beyond a certain distance you'll detect tons of things that appear the size of marbles, golfballs, beachballs, etc. At any point an F-35 might appear as a marble, or a golf ball, or a beach ball. But again, you don't know which to track.
Part of this isn't just ground clutter or random natural or artificial emissions either, it's also to do with the noise inside of your radar.

>>33107598
>hundreds of miles
It not a rocket, anon.

>>33107559
>>33107670
>>33107819
Don't forget that the bottom of an F-22, and it's back, are not perfectly flat. They have details and slight curves to reduce RCS as well.

>>33107819
>The point is that while it is enough to attract attention, it isn't enough to get a firing solution. And as such surfaces are by design exposed for very short times,
All the processing is done from a computer
> the extra scanning isn't going to help as the 'reflector' is no longer exposed.
How would the stealth fighter know when and how to turn so that whatever is reflected doesn't get received?

>with a single 'blip' you don't know range, altitiude, heading, speed, or any other important intercept parameter to any degree of accuracy
You'd know the bearing at least, or the presence of a stealth target which pretty much means any chance at surprise is gone. And that's huge.

>And even when you do know where to send it, the lower signature of the target greatly reduces the interceptor's NEZ, for active systems just as much as passive.
True.

>While thermal imagers like the AIM9x and Python 5 are less affected by stealth, they are inherently shorter ranged, so you need a far more accurate solution and midflight guidance. And active-radar based missiles are going to have a really hard time seeing the plane and engaging.
If you can get them much closer than they otherwise would've on their own then that mitigates a lot of the disadvantages enough already.


>Add in the fact that with reduced signatures comes increased effectiveness of flares, chaff, towed countermeasures and other goodies, and you get that even after detection by ground radars stealth aircraft have a significant advantage over older designs.
It would be a waste if it wasn't at the least.

>>33108332
>While true (at some distance; reflection lobes off RAM-filled surfaces aren't all that wide), the jet only has to change its flight path ~10 degrees, if that, to move that reflected beam away.
Again, how would you know when and where to turn to? For all you know doing so would just expose you in actuality. And I'm talking about separate radar sets acting bistatically btw as they are deployed.

>>33108515
>Again, how would you know when and where to turn to?
ELINT, cyber, ESM, IR imaging and satellite imagery / data.

>>33108332
>Problem with that is that you'll run into issues like radar reflecting off the stealth jet, bouncing into terrain and reflecting back to the radar, but from a different direction. You'll also have EW to contend with - if your system is too eager to track any potential target, it'll get tied up chasing ghosts.
Again, that'd only be an issue if the return is that small- which is only possible if RAM suddenly became much more effective, again as I've read up on it its just 10% at best for reducing the signature. A return that is deflected into an off-angle supposedly but is then caught should give a much stronger return.

>You'll also have EW to contend with - if your system is too eager to track any potential target, it'll get tied up chasing ghosts.
I'm not that much concerned really. I mean these things can track hundreds of targets including false positives plus with other sensors you can discriminate a lot of those from the false and the real ones bretty quick. Its only really a pain to acquire all the chess pieces and ofc. integrate them into one seamless machine, much more so than a strike stealth flight with supporting assets IMO.

>SARH / ARH. Thermal seekers aren't used on long range atmospheric missiles due to thermal saturation. Once they get around that, they'll have DIRCM to deal with as well.
I'm thinking of very short range IR missiles' seeker, like of the IRIS-T. Its small enough to be fitted alongside a large ARH seeker and both syngergize well.

>>33107102
I think you would be totally wrong if you think Neocon's have any intention of succeeding in foreign wars. Things serve their purposes, and it weakens the US

They are communists after all

>>33108515
>You'd know the bearing at least, or the presence of a stealth target which pretty much means any chance at surprise is gone. And that's huge.

See what >>33108556 said - basically, you're thinking about this all one-dimensionally. Shit's really complex in real life.

If the F-35 is the Mike fucking Tyson of stealth fighters, and you send it up against three entire football teams worth of dudes, Mike Tyson's still gonna get his fuckin ass kicked, basically. Stealth fighters will be backed up by heavy jamming support, ELINT, forward-launched disposable jammers (like MALD-J) and disposable decoy aircraft (ITALD, MALD, etc.) The more dense and sophisticated the enemy detection network, the more of this shit you need. To say nothing of more old-fashioned tactics - floating RQ-170/180 stealth drones at the edge of their detection radius to keep making their CAP fighters zip out to check out possible fighter incursions, for instance. The standard headgames still apply.

As for radar detection, the idea is to use VHF band shit like Nebo radars to get an initial detection, which can cue higher-powered S-band stuff for a much more focused area search to get a proper track. Even then, though, you pretty much need a pinpoint track to engage with SAMs. The 40N6 missile has active radar homing on it; likely so it can be launched at an imprecise target and guide in with its own radar after it reaches burn-through range close to the target.

All of this is about ten thousand times better than a current 4th gen fighter, which is detected, tracked, and has a SAM crawling up its ass pretty much the instant it enters long radar range.

>>33096579
F-35 maintainer here, fuck you guy

It can wafflestomp entire nations on its own given time to reload

>>33108626
>I'm not that much concerned really. I mean these things can track hundreds of targets including false positives plus with other sensors you can discriminate a lot of those from the false and the real ones bretty quick. Its only really a pain to acquire all the chess pieces and ofc. integrate them into one seamless machine, much more so than a strike stealth flight with supporting assets IMO.

This gets a lot harder when the enemy is deliberately fucking with you. Just look at that F-18 test where it launched a swarm of tiny little drones from its flare dispensing system - imagine chaff, but smart chaff that flies around and does what you tell it too. Shit's fuckin nuts.

>>33108626
>I'm thinking of very short range IR missiles' seeker, like of the IRIS-T. Its small enough to be fitted alongside a large ARH seeker and both syngergize well.

Those can't do area search worth a damn; which is why fighter pilots using something like a Sidewinder have to get the seeker-head to lock-on before firing (even an off-boresight launch basically tells the seeker where to look in a few seconds from launch, before firing.) They're great for providing backup and target discrimination (picking out the real target from jamming interference or decoys) upon terminal intercept; that's what the SM-2 missile (and a few others) uses it for.

IIR seekers can work for wider-volume area search, but typically only on big shit (i.e. a warship, or a ground target.) They're wide-aperture, sacrificing some resolution and weight efficiency for greater covered volume.

File: walking kctier.gif (40KB, 82x147px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 82x147px

>>33107081
>One potato has been deposited in your vatnik bucket.
If it's the one who keeps trying to force the F-35 = F-104 comparison then it's most likely pure German autism.

>>33108722
>then it's most likely pure German autism.

The Starfighter still triggers them hard. Guess I can't blame them, though.

>>33108332
>No one is suggesting that it's golfball sized (or rather, marble sized) all round; the point is that if you lower your noise filter, beyond a certain distance you'll detect tons of things that appear the size of marbles, golfballs, beachballs, etc. At any point an F-35 might appear as a marble, or a golf ball, or a beach ball. But again, you don't know which to track.
Again, I'm not saying lower the sensitivity of the sensors, because that's just counter-productive for the most part. What I'm saying is since a huge portion of the backscatter is only reflected away, you can use that fact to triangulate the stealthy targets by lieu of other sensors just passively listening being in the right place at the right time, which isn't an element attributed to luck as some might think but of tactics rather in proper placement.

>>33108421
>Don't forget that the bottom of an F-22, and it's back, are not perfectly flat. They have details and slight curves to reduce RCS as well.
Flat faces are so passe. Supercomputers(80s circa) have made it such that aerodynamic curves and stealthy faceting can live together in holy matrimony.

>>33108556
>ELINT
I'm not sure how ELINT would work against passive listeners...

>cyber
Possible, but highly unlikely. The IAD net is working in a LAN- and speculating on being able to break encrypted comms. is bordering on, well speculations.

>IR imaging and satellite imagery / data
The local atmosphere may beg to differ, and its pretty hard to comb through gigs worth of imagery- software can do it, but then again, its trivially easy to use terrain or something like the Barracuda camouflage to hide and even if you did manage to find it it could be too late as it may have driven off a few minutes ago...

>>33108753
I can't really either, really soured their view on Lockheed and American jets in general. To try and act like the F-35 is the same thing is retarded though.

>>33105705
>Can you point out times during the Iraq War when air power failed to deliver?

Yeah, when we left Iraq with our tail between our legs after eight years of not accomplishing a fucking thing. All of our big expensive high-tech weapons systems didn't do shit as far as securing us victory went. We could have shown up with Mosin-Nagants and Sopwith Camels and accomplished just as much, because...

We. Didn't. Win.

>>33108756
>Flat faces are so passe. Supercomputers(80s circa) have made it such that aerodynamic curves and stealthy faceting can live together in holy matrimony.

Pretty much the whole idea behind the F-22 and the F-35s stealth, all inheritors of the Tacit Blue program. The F-117 Geometry Atrocity approach is dead and buried, for sure.

>The local atmosphere may beg to differ, and its pretty hard to comb through gigs worth of imagery- software can do it, but then again, its trivially easy to use terrain or something like the Barracuda camouflage to hide and even if you did manage to find it it could be too late as it may have driven off a few minutes ago...

Are you talking about using decoys, camouflage to hide SAM sites? Yeah, future combat is going to be a very, very complex shell game between aircraft and SAMs. The F-35 has a new system in it so advanced that in the last Red Flag, their computers automatically filtered out the "simulated" SAM radars as decoys (which they are, really, just standing in for an active SAM simulated via computer.) They had to tweak the software just to be able to run the drills.

The funny thing about the F-35 is that the sensors are just as important, maybe even more important to it than the stealth, and that's where a tremendous amount of money has gone, but nobody talks about it much.

>>33105885
>Why is is not better to relieve 3-4 designs with a singular one that is more efficient at all older tasks AND is superior in near-peer conflicts?

Sure, if it actually works as advertised and really does those things. Which it doesn't. It didn't when we tried it with the F-111, and it won't with the F-35, either.

>>33108780
>To try and act like the F-35 is the same thing is retarded though.

No kidding; a modern multirole is not a 60s era dedicated interceptor. And it's not like we were running the West German Air Force. "Limited all-weather" was on the label for a REASON.

>>33108796

Winning or not winning had absolutely nothing to do with any real or perceived deficiencies in air power though. The fact that America ruled the sky was never in doubt at any stage of the conflict.

>>33108816

The F-111 worked fine though.

File: 1476693176718.jpg (57KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x427px

>>33108796
>airpower did nothing
>We. Didn't. Win.

Don't we, uh, literally control Iraq right now? Us, and the democratically elected Iraqi government we back and support...?

>>33108672
>If the F-35 is the Mike fucking Tyson of stealth fighters, and you send it up against three entire football teams worth of dudes, Mike Tyson's still gonna get his fuckin ass kicked, basically. Stealth fighters will be backed up by heavy jamming support, ELINT, forward-launched disposable jammers (like MALD-J) and disposable decoy aircraft (ITALD, MALD, etc.) The more dense and sophisticated the enemy detection network, the more of this shit you need. To say nothing of more old-fashioned tactics - floating RQ-170/180 stealth drones at the edge of their detection radius to keep making their CAP fighters zip out to check out possible fighter incursions, for instance. The standard headgames still apply.
I agree.

>>33108672
>As for radar detection, the idea is to use VHF band shit like Nebo radars to get an initial detection, which can cue higher-powered S-band stuff for a much more focused area search to get a proper track. Even then, though, you pretty much need a pinpoint track to engage with SAMs. The 40N6 missile has active radar homing on it; likely so it can be launched at an imprecise target and guide in with its own radar after it reaches burn-through range close to the target.
I'm actually curious why the rooskies didn't put an active seeker in the intermediate 48N6 missile series. Even the smaller and rather more challenging to adapt a radar to 9m96 have their own ARH heads...

>All of this is about ten thousand times better than a current 4th gen fighter, which is detected, tracked, and has a SAM crawling up its ass pretty much the instant it enters long radar range.
Well, a 4th gen fighter can always employ standoff PGMs with the residual cash from not buying and operating a stealth fighter...

File: 1374794972821.jpg (30KB, 570x364px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 570x364px

>>33096428

File: rafale eater.jpg (76KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 800x533px

>>33104124

File: f117shot down by korean war era missile asspain.png (283KB, 540x410px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 540x410px

>>33097752

>>33105936
>>more combat experience than Russia and China

Yes, but not any better a record of actually *winning* wars than Russia and China, which is kind of the important part. China suffered an embarrassing stalemate in Vietnam and withdrew after an inconclusive war; so did we. Russia flopped around trying to drag Afghanistan out of the 15th century for a few years before giving up and going home; we're on track to do exactly the same.

Saying that having more experience at not winning wars makes you a better fighter is kind of like saying that an abused housewife could kick Conor McGregor's ass because she's been punched way more times than he ever has. That's not how things work.

>>33108816
>It didn't when we tried it with the F-111
Because the F-111 tried to combine long-range interdictor and fleet interceptor, of course it didn't work then. The F-35 is a multirole strike fighter, the basic concept of which has proven to be pretty solid.

>>33106355
>k
The 80s doesn't count as "modern" war? Really?
>k
If you have a definition of "victory" that would include the current state on Iraq in it, then you're either a neocon shill or a fucking idiot.

>>33108715
>This gets a lot harder when the enemy is deliberately fucking with you. Just look at that F-18 test where it launched a swarm of tiny little drones from its flare dispensing system - imagine chaff, but smart chaff that flies around and does what you tell it too. Shit's fuckin nuts.
Its nuts for you and me but for computers, its like Tuesday, or whatever passes for Tuesday for them. Electronic scanning gives out a clear picture in a few seconds, and it has enough non-volatile memory to track, and process each in multiples at a time.

>Those can't do area search worth a damn; which is why fighter pilots using something like a Sidewinder have to get the seeker-head to lock-on before firing (even an off-boresight launch basically tells the seeker where to look in a few seconds from launch, before firing.) They're great for providing backup and target discrimination (picking out the real target from jamming interference or decoys) upon terminal intercept; that's what the SM-2 missile (and a few others) uses it for.
If you can manage to get it as close as an aircraft ideally would to get it to lock it should have little problems doing so even from a missile.

>>33108810
>Are you talking about using decoys, camouflage to hide SAM sites? Yeah, future combat is going to be a very, very complex shell game between aircraft and SAMs. The F-35 has a new system in it so advanced that in the last Red Flag, their computers automatically filtered out the "simulated" SAM radars as decoys (which they are, really, just standing in for an active SAM simulated via computer.) They had to tweak the software just to be able to run the drills.
I'd actually be careful with that. That's just begging for one try with the IADs that actually dumbs down its emissions to get past... sneaky bastards...

>>33108626
>which is only possible if RAM suddenly became much more effective, again as I've read up on it its just 10% at best
The RAM world is pretty highly classified, but the 10% figure is an estimate that hails from the F-117 days. It still applies at times today, but if RAM wasn't so important, they wouldn't bother putting it on the jets (considering that it's a maintenance burden).

>A return that is deflected into an off-angle supposedly but is then caught should give a much stronger return.
Only if the angles align perfectly.

>I mean these things can track hundreds of targets including false positives plus with other sensors you can discriminate a lot of those from the false and the real ones bretty quick.
Based on what, RT articles?

>Its small enough to be fitted alongside a large ARH seeker and both syngergize well.
That doesn't really fix the problem; the better solution would just be an IR seeker that's covered with a nosecone, but then ejects it when it gets close to where the target is meant to be. Even then there's still some thermal saturation.

>>33108756
>which isn't an element attributed to luck as some might think but of tactics rather in proper placement.
Multistatic arrays have their own issues - how do you connect all of those systems for example? If it's via radio, ELINT aircraft will see them and SEAD aircraft will just treat them like radars. If it's via hardline, that's a fair bit of a prep-work, trying to lay out hundreds or thousands of miles of cabling across varied terrain (also limiting your ability to place receivers where you want). If you use existing networks, you open yourself up to espionage and cyber attacks.

>>33108856
>I'm actually curious why the rooskies didn't put an active seeker in the intermediate 48N6 missile series. Even the smaller and rather more challenging to adapt a radar to 9m96 have their own ARH heads...

Fucking expensive, basically. Same reason the SM-6 is fucking expensive, you're blowing up a full radar set with every shot. The semi-active Track Via Missile system is all about high performance but with cheaper missiles. In service they'll probably use a mix, saving the 40N6 for more difficult or distant targets.

>>33108856
>Well, a 4th gen fighter can always employ standoff PGMs with the residual cash from not buying and operating a stealth fighter...

Not so much anymore - the SA-21 has a range of 120 miles, and the 40N6 can reach out to 215 or so (claimed, at least.) Even a full load of SLAM-ER low-observable cruise missiles doesn't help much; they can only reach about 150 miles. And firing tons of cruise missiles are expensive. The other problem is fixing the location of the radar sites; ELINT gets a lot more precise the closer you can get.

Jamming aircraft can help a lot with this by reducing effective enemy radar range for conventional aircraft, but it works even better paired with stealth aircraft. Incidentally, the Navy's going to buy more Growlers, so they're not ignorant of it. The F-35 can also load up extra stores on external pylons if it needs more boom and doesn't give a fuck about stealth; that flexibility is mandatory.

It's basically more stealthy than a B-2 Spirit, but it can also do regular old bomb-truck and CAP flights, unlike a B-2 Spirit. It's actually a move away from the special snowflake one-mission aircraft. If it wasn't, it'd be just another B-2 Spirit - hundreds planned, only twenty purchased. Etc.

>>33108902
>Because the F-111 tried to combine long-range interdictor and fleet interceptor, of course it didn't work then. The F-35 is a multirole strike fighter, the basic concept of which has proven to be pretty solid.

Well, the F-35 isn't proving to be "pretty solid" so far.

>>33108951
>non-volatile
*volatile, as in RAM.

>The funny thing about the F-35 is that the sensors are just as important, maybe even more important to it than the stealth, and that's where a tremendous amount of money has gone, but nobody talks about it much.
Its not as sexy as weapons, or stealth, or engines. That and its networking capabilities which I'd say is actually the biggest boon offered by the F-35.

>>33108951
>If you can manage to get it as close as an aircraft ideally would to get it to lock it should have little problems doing so even from a missile.

Not if the ground station can't get a very precise fix to guide it in via datalink. It'd also require an EOTS system on the missile, which is terribly expensive.

>>33108974
>JUST got done kicking ass at Red Flag
>hurrrr it's not pretty solid

File: ussthesullivans-firingmissi.jpg (141KB, 780x522px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 780x522px

>>33108974

>Well, the F-35 isn't proving to be "pretty solid" so far.

It's doing pretty darn well considering it just entered service less than a few months ago.

>>33108967

Dragon, I have a question. We talk about the F-35's capability against other aircraft very frequently, but very rarely is the F-35's anti-ship capability discussed. In your opinion, would the F-35 be able to take out an Arleigh-Burke DDG?

File: 1487595462953.jpg (33KB, 620x640px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 620x640px

>>33109021
>would the F-35 be able to take out an Arleigh-Burke DDG?

Compared to what? No single plane can carry enough ordinance to penetrate a Burke's air defense. It can do a fuck of a lot better than any 4th gen can, though; it'd be able to fix the Burkes location through jamming a hell of a lot better, get close enough to fire standoff ords like HARMs (70nm range) without getting an SM-2ER/SM-6 (130nm range) rammed up its ass first, and get out again much better than anything else.

A ship is basically a floating SAM site.

File: solomon bob.jpg (73KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 400x300px

>>33108974
If you wear some ruby slippers, close your eyes, click your heels together three times and say "The F-35 is in a death spiral!" you can pretend it will come true.

>>33108835
>The F-111 worked fine though.

Sorta.

There's an old rule of thumb about multifunction devices that if they have, say, ten functions, they'll be really good at one or two of them, adequate at four or five of them, and lousy at the rest of them. Anyone who's had a printer/copier/scanner/fax multifunction device knows what I mean by that.

The F-111 was supposed to be a multirole aircraft that did everything for everybody. It didn't. Eventually, we did figure out the one thing it *was* really good at, which was being a long-range strike aircraft, which we actually happened to need at the end of Vietnam. Once we started using it for - and only for - what it did well and optimizing it for that, we managed to turn the plane into a success, albeit a far more limited success than we had intended.

>>33109059

Yeah, but the F-35 is stealthy. What's to stop it from flying right overhead and dropping a pair of 2000 lb bomb right on top of the DDG? Aim for the VLS bank and the ship will be torn in half when all the missiles are detonated by the explosion.

>>33108841
>Don't we, uh, literally control Iraq right now?

Okay, now you're just trolling. Come back when you're ready to have a serious conversation.

>>33109005
>JUST got done kicking ass at Red Flag

JUST got done kicking ass in an exercise where the people who put it together desperately wanted to make it look good.

soundslegit,jpg

File: dubious operator glance.jpg (113KB, 334x339px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 334x339px

>>33109103
>What's to stop it from flying right overhead and dropping a pair of 2000 lb bomb right on top of the DDG?

... uh, the inverse square law.

>>33109110
>Okay, now you're just trolling.

https://isis.liveuamap.com/

Check dat shit, son. Yellow is Kurds, red is Iraqi government (Kurds are pretty much autonomous, which is how it should be, really,) and gray is ISIS. Not a whole fuck of a lotta grey on that map, nigga.

>>33109110

You realize that the US still has troops in Iraq right? They haven't kicked us out yet. And bear in mind, I think that Iraq War II was a hideous waste of money. But we definitely did "win" in a military sense. Politically? Probably not. But militarily? Hell yeah.

>>33108967
>The RAM world is pretty highly classified, but the 10% figure is an estimate that hails from the F-117 days. It still applies at times today, but if RAM wasn't so important, they wouldn't bother putting it on the jets (considering that it's a maintenance burden).
From what I understand most of the developments over the past decades especially with regards to F-35s development for the RAM is oriented towards making it more user-friendly. i.e. no more hours spent cutting RAM panels just to get to access a component etc.

Only if the angles align perfectly.
Again, it doesn't have to. Very minor angles translate to very long arcs across tens or hundreds of kms.

>Based on what, RT articles?
Wiki. I mean I've watched Discovery in the 90s tout how the Aegis system can track hundreds of targets, shouldn't count as much of a stretch any other players system can do the same with more than a decade of tech advancement and access to high-grade electronics.

>That doesn't really fix the problem; the better solution would just be an IR seeker that's covered with a nosecone, but then ejects it when it gets close to where the target is meant to be. Even then there's still some thermal saturation.
That's some huge IIR seeker you got there. But I really think you still need the ARH. Remember you are actually close or rather getting close enough to burn through anyways and it'd always be immune to chaff and DIRCM.

>>33108967
>>which isn't an element attributed to luck as some might think but of tactics rather in proper placement.

>Multistatic arrays have their own issues - how do you connect all of those systems for example?
I don't think directional datalinks would be that much apparent to outside observers unless they got really lucky and got beamed in the middle of it.

>>33100408
>>33100445
Modern combat jets, at least all western ones, auto-trim. For fighters like the F-15 and beyond (F-16,18, 22, 35) trim for a certain G and requires zero pilot input after that. I know for F-15s there is a takeoff trim that is set for around 1.2-1.5G and once airborne you trim for 1.0G and you barely adjust it after that, the computer keeps you straight and level at 1.0 G throughout all airspeeds. The stick input doesn't change the deflection of the stabilators, it tells the computer how much G you want to pull, so in effect 1 inch of stick travel gives you x amount of Gs, depending on the aircraft. The sticks on the F-16, F-22, and F-35 barely move and is more 1lbf gives you x amount of Gs. It's nice because if you're trying to fight a 6-9 G rate fight, you can do a break turn to that G and just hold the stick at the exact same position and as your airspeed increases or decreases your G will stay the same up until the jet gets too slow (below cornering velocity) to pull that amount of Gs. It's not like your Cessna 172 where the yoke directly pulls the cables to mechanically move the elevator.

>>33108968
>Fucking expensive, basically. Same reason the SM-6 is fucking expensive, you're blowing up a full radar set with every shot. The semi-active Track Via Missile system is all about high performance but with cheaper missiles. In service they'll probably use a mix, saving the 40N6 for more difficult or distant targets.
Which is just odd. Again, the 9m96 series- the missile for the frigates and that nifty S-350 replacement for early model S-300 if I read well, sport ARH heads, and yet would be used in much greater numbers (thrice in a launcher than previous 4 missiles, so 12) than the replacement TVM/SAGM missiles. Its weird is all.

>Not so much anymore - the SA-21 has a range of 120 miles, and the 40N6 can reach out to 215 or so (claimed, at least.) Even a full load of SLAM-ER low-observable cruise missiles doesn't help much; they can only reach about 150 miles. And firing tons of cruise missiles are expensive. The other problem is fixing the location of the radar sites; ELINT gets a lot more precise the closer you can get.
oh come on. Its not a doomlaser that immediately fries whatever crosses that 215 or 120 mi red line- it would take time for said missiles to reach that outer edge at which point you should already released and have turnaround and burning already, which only minimizes the already minimum Pk of the missiles.


>he other problem is fixing the location of the radar sites; ELINT gets a lot more precise the closer you can get.
True. But then again, what's stopping me from employing disposable UAVs with support assets as afforded to the F-35?

>>33109021
Today and even soon with Block 3F, it wouldn't be able to kill an Arleigh-Burke, not without performing a lot of sorties or having a bunch of F-35s - the main issue is that the only weapon an F-35 can currently use to hit a moving target is the GBU-12; a 500lb bomb. You'd need multiple to sink the ship, and even then those bombs can only be dropped from ~10 miles away. SDBs and JSOWs would be better, but they can't hit moving targets.

As for the F-35's survivability, I think it'd be fairly immune to being engaged; an AN/SPY-1 isn't likely to detect an F-35 at a decent range and all the ship's surface-to-air weaponry is ARH / SARH which won't be too effective.

Block 4 is when things would change; the ability to launch JSMs, JSOW-C1 (updated version that can hit moving maritime targets), etc will make it pretty effective, though again you'll probably need a fair few jets to overwhelm the Burke's defences. Using SDB-IIs or SPEAR 3s might even work better - they won't be as stealthy as those other weapons, but a 4-ship of F-35s could send 32x ~100lb warheads simultaneously.

>>33109167
>most of the developments over the past decades
Correct, but even ignoring the impact of having reliably stealth, they have also done work to improve absorption across wider bands, etc.

>Very minor angles translate to very long arcs across tens or hundreds of kms
What's a minor angle to you though? 1 degree from 100km away is a 1.7km wide arc. 5 degrees is 8.5km, 10 degrees is 17km, etc.

>decade of tech advancement and access to high-grade electronics
You're forgetting though that those same advancements also apply to EW systems. Better electronics means being able to more rapidly and precisely perform DRFM jamming, etc.

1/2

>>33108968
>Jamming aircraft can help a lot with this by reducing effective enemy radar range for conventional aircraft, but it works even better paired with stealth aircraft. Incidentally, the Navy's going to buy more Growlers, so they're not ignorant of it. The F-35 can also load up extra stores on external pylons if it needs more boom and doesn't give a fuck about stealth; that flexibility is mandatory.
True. But the problem is almost the opposite of the above. Those long range missiles pretty much means Growlers are going to be in a lot of trouble if they try to jam the SA-21. Standard escape tactic of cutting and running ain't gonna work when you just then left the stealth fighter hanging- whoops.

>>33108993
>Not if the ground station can't get a very precise fix to guide it in via datalink.
yeah ofc.

>It'd also require an EOTS system on the missile, which is terribly expensive.
missiles are already terribly expensive. However there is no shortage of PGM seeker sensor tech acquisition programs even in the cash-strapped non-US and non-Chinese militaries with which to pinch and piggyback on for economy savings. It doesn't have to be terribly expensive but good as the one on the F-35 itself.

File: 1468255878515.jpg (281KB, 850x1236px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 850x1236px

>>33096428
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/24/fox-news-investigation-dod-funded-school-at-center-federal-probes-over-suspected-chinese-military-ties.html

You goyim ready to fight the Red Chinese menace?

>>33108810
>Pretty much the whole idea behind the F-22 and the F-35s stealth, all inheritors of the Tacit Blue program. The F-117 Geometry Atrocity approach is dead and buried, for sure.
Technically it was gone with the B-2, the F-22 and -35 are just further evolutions as processing power increases.

>>33108816
>Sure, if it actually works as advertised and really does those things.
Except it does, have you not been following the fucking Exercise reports?

>and it won't with the F-35, either.
But, it already is.

>>33109348
>>33109167
>Remember you are actually close or rather getting close enough to burn through anyways and it'd always be immune to chaff and DIRCM.
The radar seekers on missiles like the AMRAAM or R-77 aren't very well equipped for detecting something like an F-35; radars for example have a minimum detection range based on their pulse width; if you took an F-16C and put it 10m away from the front of an F-35, it still wouldn't be able to detect it for that reason.

The ability to get around DIRCM / chaff is a good point, although RF + IR countermeasures would still work (eg, towed decoys + DIRCM)

>I don't think directional datalinks would be that much apparent to outside observers unless they got really lucky and got beamed in the middle of it.
In the air sure, but doing point-to-point, ground-to-ground comms is tougher; any sidelobes or 'spillage' is likely to result in scatter off the ground that can be used to cue EO or SAR for more precise searches.

>>33108868
>>33108894
>Children who believe the memes

File: 24180150[1].gif (59KB, 610x512px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 610x512px

>>33109397
Plus the only truly reliable theater-scale non-satellite communication method is Near-Vertical Incidence Skywave in the HF band, which is pretty low bandwidth.

>>33109348
>Correct, but even ignoring the impact of having reliably stealth, they have also done work to improve absorption across wider bands, etc.
There'd still be limits though. From what I've read the RAM layer on the B-2 is about a foot or a couple thick! which is nuts.

>What's a minor angle to you though? 1 degree from 100km away is a 1.7km wide arc. 5 degrees is 8.5km, 10 degrees is 17km, etc.
Even something like .30 deg of turn would give 500m, which assuming a high subsonic F-35 flying with such a minor turn would clear it in ~2s, more than enough to get a few scan cycles done.

>You're forgetting though that those same advancements also apply to EW systems. Better electronics means being able to more rapidly and precisely perform DRFM jamming, etc.
Which is true, but remember as reactive systems there's always that element of initial disadvantage particularly if there has never been any contact with the measure that is to be countered. Its like getting as much tax returns as your mortal enemy, only instead of pistols at dawn which you'd prepared for by buying that nifty colt, he went ahead with buying an SKS...

>The radar seekers on missiles like the AMRAAM or R-77 aren't very well equipped for detecting something like an F-35; radars for example have a minimum detection range based on their pulse width; if you took an F-16C and put it 10m away from the front of an F-35, it still wouldn't be able to detect it for that reason.
So what you're saying is that there's total zero vision myopic zone for radars- well that's why there's the IIR backup!
>In the air sure, but doing point-to-point, ground-to-ground comms is tougher; any sidelobes or 'spillage' is likely to result in scatter off the ground that can be used to cue EO or SAR for more precise searches.
You could take advantage of it, but then again, its randomized a bit by the terrain already and there's really no guarantee you can follow it to the source.

>>33104422


Because when everyone has a college degree, no one has a college degree

>mfw when I have to have a bachelors degree just to work at McDonalds.

>>33108897
Talking about combat experience with modern fighters, dickfuck

When was the last time a Russian pilot actually shot down an aircraft of the same generation?

>>33110129
Never.

Ethiopians used Flankers to kill Eritrean Fulcrums, though.

>>33109663
>the RAM layer on the B-2
I doubt it'd be that thick, but it can definitely be a few inches thick.

>which assuming a high subsonic F-35 flying with such a minor turn would clear it in ~2s
0.3 degrees? It'd clear that in milliseconds, which is nowhere near enough time to get multiple scan cycles done.

>if there has never been any contact with the measure that is to be countered
Some jamming methods are more or less universal; an EW platform can simply try various methods and see what works while MALDs / MALD-Js test their response. DARPA's also working on an autonomous EW framework that would allow for new RF threats to have their waveforms analysed and a jamming solution generated in seconds or minutes.

>well that's why there's the IIR backup!
I thought we were talking about using radar as a back-up for when DIRCM blinded IR though?

>its randomized a bit by the terrain already
True, but to an ESM system it'll appear like an expanding field of emitters; almost like an arrowhead pointing back towards the emission source.

>>33110104
>mfw when I have to have a bachelors degree just to work at McDonalds.
Probably won't be far from the truth once automation eliminates burger flippers and counter-operators.

>>33110611
Let's be fair here though, McDonalds has always been about increasing work force efficiency though factory-style production.

The question is if they can survive through my generation's demand for quality instead of raw quantity.

>>33109093
I bet none of your printers cost anywhere near $94 million dollars, though. We're not talking cheap chinesium things built in high quantities for consumption by people who will at worst not buy your product again if they don't like it.

>>33110129
Vietnam.

You don't think that "Colonel Tomb" was really Vietnamese, do you?

>>33109125
Yes, in one of the most complex and difficult situations the planners could devise because they wanted to show how really badass it was. It triumphed in a situation in which fourth generation aircraft experienced over 50% losses without completing objectives.

Pretending Red Flag is rigged is retarded. The entire purpose of Red Flag is to be a meat grinder for everyone. The Aggressor squadrons love to crush the BLUFOR.

>>33111058
>The entire purpose of Red Flag is to be a meat grinder for everyone.

Uhh, no, There's No. Fucking. Way. that the generals are going to let their new toy look like a total shitbox in exercises. And yes, the military *does* rig shit like this all the time. Here - do some reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

If you think that was a one-off event and the military doesn't do shit like that constantly to avoid looking bad, then you're dumb as a sack of hammers.

>>33109253
Fly by Wire and side stick suck ass.

>>33111114
You're a fucking idiot. The entire purpose of Red Flag from the very first one has been to get pilots combat-like experience with less fatal risk. Because ten combat missions was found to be the line that made a rookie likely to survive their tour in Vietnam. And the core goal was to provide the realistic simulation of those environments and get them to learn from every flight.

And the rest of the US military has used Red Flag as the base for their own exercises to fantastic results.

File: giphy.gif (480KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 493x342px

>>33111174

>>33111114
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Except we know that it was rigged after the Navy got BTFO. Just becuase an Admiral got butthurt his tactics were shit and used his authority over the enemy forces to make himslf win does not mean theat the same thing happens at Red Flag, which routinely has international visitors whoa are completely outside the USAF chain of command, and a REDFOR who come up with their own strategy independent of the work of BLUFOR squadrons. I can guarantee you the assholes who work in the Aggressor squadron, pilot down would throw a goddamned hissy fit if they were forced to lose. They also crow from the rooftops about how great they are when hey do score 5th gen kills, because they know it's extremely hard to do, which they wouldn't be allowed to do if the whole point was to make F-35s and F-22s look invincible.

>>33111174
Well F-15 has a hydromechanical and CAS flight controls with a center stick and it seems to work out fine, but seeing that all modern fighters now have side stick, it seems to work fine as well. F-15 theoretically with just hydromechanical on its own does the same 1 inch of stick movement giving you x amount of Gs but with the CAS (the computers) on then it just gives finer inputs to the controls as well as giving extra inputs to the rudders to keep the turns coordinated. Having said that, the break turn in an F-15 is an art that even weapons officers can't max perform every time.

Break turn is less of a big deal in something like a raptor that can turn on its own ass though. Starting out defensively it will just point at you and shoot you because it can do 9Gs at a lower airspeed than any 4th gen so its instantaneous turn rate and radius are insanely good. When you have wingmen involved it evolves into a much larger game plan of course, but that has more to do with training than performance of the jet itself. USAF and every Western country has way more flight hours per year than Russia or any other 3rd world does with amazing simulator technology to go on top of that. We're in a good spot.

>>33103253
Both you little shit.

Fucking billionaires scream to high heaven if we raise their taxes by 1%, so we raise the cost of living on everyone else by 10%.

I want my roads. I want my planes. I want my educational system. Fuck this fucking false dilemma nonsense.

>>33111300
And if you read a less biased account of Millennium Challence 2002 you'd learn that Red Team ignored the actual limitations of their tactics and forces to get their win.

File: tumblr_o6a99yBKrx1suz0tyo1_500.gif (2MB, 477x266px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 477x266px

Step aside

>>33111979
>tumblr

>>33101099
>3 dedicated radar sites just to determine that there's a fighter in a 100 mile grid
wow.......so this......is the power....of russia.......woah.........

>>33110611
>I doubt it'd be that thick, but it can definitely be a few inches thick.
The whole leading edge of the wings are supposed to be RAM, including the structural reinforcements.


>0.3 degrees? It'd clear that in milliseconds, which is nowhere near enough time to get multiple scan cycles done.
Huh? Radars send out hundreds, no thousands of pulses per second. Obviously not every scan is used but you use maths to correlate those to give a much broader picture.

>Some jamming methods are more or less universal; an EW platform can simply try various methods and see what works while MALDs / MALD-Js test their response. DARPA's also working on an autonomous EW framework that would allow for new RF threats to have their waveforms analysed and a jamming solution generated in seconds or minutes.
Fact is those are only as good as their programming, and last I checked this field is still balls deep in really high maths and not everyday someone can just come up with a new framework that automatically takes into account whatever the otehr side cooked up.

>I thought we were talking about using radar as a back-up for when DIRCM blinded IR though?
Well I highly doubt an AA missile is going to have a minimal zone of detection much like the F-16Cs, for the simple fact that its made to chase targets and collide head-on or as close as possible, which the F-16C doesn't do afaik.

>True, but to an ESM system it'll appear like an expanding field of emitters; almost like an arrowhead pointing back towards the emission source.
I'm having a hard time picturing that. It got bounced back, lord knows how many times- diffused even. You need to account for the situation of the terrain and make like CSI and backtrack to where the scatter came from.

>>33109103
Phalanx CIWS

File: AmerNiggerShit.jpg (64KB, 1006x629px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1006x629px

>>33096428