USSR fighter jets. Mig29 and SU27 derivatives vs f16/15 hiw did

>>35086363
Yes they did if maintained properly

>>35086416
Which is slang for 'replace that fucking engine 5x more often than the western counterparts'

>>35086382
Who were the russian jets losing to? Those numbers are really bad for the russians

>>35086499
Many F4 and F14 kills are completely bullshit claims from the Iran-Iraq war.

>>35086363
Enough with this bait-tier debate.
US have arguably better avionics Russia have better AAM.

>>35086573
what about the f-15 and f-16 numbers? those are still ridiculously impressive

>>35086573
>better aam's
>fucking sub 4% pk's

MiG-29s had the edge in WVR with the use of their helmet mounted sights that slewed the seeker head of the R-73, which was possibly superior to Aim-9s of the time (certainly in maneuverability). F-16s were superior in BVR. MiG-29S could be equipped with R-77 ARH missiles (Su-27s could not at the time), So it would still be formidable.

Su-27s and F-15s had comparable detection ranges, but Su-27s were only equipped with SARH missiles and could only engage one target at a time; F-15's had ARH AIM-120s and could engage multiple targets simultaneously, as well as the benefit of a fire-and-forget missile (within 10nm?). However, the Su-27 had the benefit of an integrated FLIR and a relatively long range R-27ET heatseeker that allowed it some degree of stealth by leaving its radar off and not revealing itself on an enemy's radar warning receiver. Good for a side attack. Not much use if the enemy's radar has detected you. WVR goes to the Su-27 for the same reason it does for the MiG-29.

>>35086585
Most F-16 and F-15 kills were from (((Joo))) aircraft

>>35086657

Burshtyn-70 IR seeker head used in R-73 had decent sensitivity, but laughably bad MTBF of like 8 hrs. Mainly due to a fact that rotary solenoids used to move the seeker had tendency to jam and fall apart when exposed to more than +2g. It was rectified in later production batches, but missiles with reinforced head do not enter service until early 2000.

R-27ET was somehow usefull for attacking big, non-manouvering targets like bombers or cargo planes. For smaller targets it was completely useless, because the efficiency of IR seeker cooling system was not good enough to compensate for heating up of the front of the missile (due to friction) when it was launched at long range; at said long range missile was simply not capable of finding a target unless it was emiting huge amount of thermal radiation. And by "huge" it's mean that even fighter going full AB was not always strong enough target.

>>35086363
If they could get in a turning fight with Western fighters, they'd do quite well. Very maneuverable and their IRST + helmet mounted sight was very effective WVR.

However, Western doctrine emphasized BVR engagements and highly capable radar systems and information sharing. Western fighters would likely have better SA than the Soviet fighters.

In short: Soviet fighters were quite competitive once they were WVR. But getting there would be tough.

File: 1359058320291.jpg (321KB, 777x1048px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 777x1048px

>>35086863

Wow a thread that actually nows what they are talking about instead of just "lel slav shit"

Soviet planes were worse than US planes, but they weren't horrible. Lots of Russian planes have horrible kill records for a lot of reasons besides just being inferior. On topography not being as good, they were always outnumbered or outdated. Like the MiG-23 was supposed to fight F-4's, but got BTFO'd by Jew F-15s and F-16s, which are 4th gens.

Iraqi and Yugoslav MiG-29s had no chance against a for that had almost every advantage in terms of numbers, SA, tactics, all added on to being better.

In a Cold War gone hot scenario with Soviet AWACS/GCI and hundreads of MiGs and Sukhois everywhere, there would have been some decent parity leaning towards NATO in the mid 80's. Not like the last US engagements where two downgraded MiGs go against a wave of 20 US fighters who knew their position the second they were wheels up.

I'm proud of you today /k/

Since this seems to be a surprisingly well-mannered thread, I'll ask this here :

I never quite understood how Soviet planes' reputation of being easy to maintain could work regarding their huge frequency of failures.

I remember watching the interview of an Israli test pilot who flew a defected MiG-21, and he said "It was impressive how easy it was to operate, you would just put fuel in the tanks and take off again".

But since Russian planes seems to be falling out of the sky nowadays, is it because the maintenance is so poor that they can't even reach the very low standard needed for them to operate ?

>>35087717
>But since Russian planes seems to be falling out of the sky nowadays, is it because the maintenance is so poor that they can't even reach the very low standard needed for them to operate ?
If you're referring to Middle Eastern air forces, yes. Read "Why Arabs Lose Wars".

To sum that article up, Islamic culture is still stuck in tribal feudalism, they're all too retarded to even do basic PT let alone maintain supersonic aircraft.

>>35087717
>since Russian planes seems to be falling out of the sky nowadays
in the same amount than any other nation aircraft

>>35087717
>since Russian planes seems to be falling out of the sky nowadays
am i missing something? i haven't noticed an unusual rate of accident for russian planes, except in india service but even there that's mostly ancient MiG 21s maintained by indians

if anything russian planes seem to have good performance based on the number of flights/aircraft in syria

>>35087717
Russian planes got this reputation thaks to their design. The commies understood that they had extensive borders to cover and that really fast interceptors wouldn't do the trick (see Tu 128). So they chose to design their planes as to be able to operate from small facilities.
It was also coherent with their plans for an eventual invasion of Western Europe: they expected a swift armored advance, and their planes had to follow the tanks by moving to makeshift facilities.

But as >>35087747 said today old soviet planes are operated by countries with no means to maintain them.

>>35087717
It has to do with the fact that the Soviets squeezed performance out of engines and airframes at the cost of longevity as they were behind the west when it came to metallurgy. The MiG-29 is notorious for this in particular.

>>35086363
The Fulcrum was pretty shit. It did have the niche advantage of having better high off-boresight targeting capabilities, which was a big surprise to NATO when we got around to testing ex-East German MiG-29s at the end of the Cold War. But operationally, the MiG-29 was terrible to fly. It had a pitifully short combat endurance, even compared to a clean F-16, and it was designed with the same heavy reliance on ground control and horrific cockpit ergonomics that were popular for Soviet aircraft. The MiG-29's cockpit layout was notoriously shit to the point that one of the biggest selling points MiG had for latest iterations of the design was that they unfucked the cockpit.

The Flanker was better matched, if only because it lacked the two greatest flaws of the Fulcrum - the retardedly short endurance and a terrible cockpit layout.

>>35087813
>if anything russian planes seem to have good performance based on the number of flights/aircraft in syria
Crashing 2 aircraft in 400 sorties is considered good now?

>>35086499
The numbers are from export models that were smoked all around the globe.

>>35090095
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20

>>35090095
Those numbers include the MiG-29's shooting down a pair of cessnas and a couple of unarmed subsonic drones.

>>35087876
Still today in Su-27+++ the pilot still needs to do math in their head in order to calculate a BVR firing solution. Which is not something that helps pilots in combat.

>>35087254
spoiler alert in the 80's the MiGs and Sukhois of the USSR were outnumbered by US aircraft. In a cold war turned hot they would have been outnumbered, flown by pilots who had significantly fewer flying hours than their opponents, and they would have been roundly smoked and the USSR knew it. Why do you think the USSR invested so heavily in SAMs?

to all of you saying that the MiGs and Sukhois stood a chance, see >>35086836 The AtA missiles the USSR had were absolute shit, with a combined Phit of just 4%, whereas the US missiles in vietnam had Phits in excess of 25%, with a Pkill of 18%. In a match up of a plane with missiles against one without, the one without is going to suffer.

File: MiG29 Poland Eurofighter Italy.jpg (399KB, 2048x1438px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 2048x1438px

>>>The AtA missiles the USSR had were absolute shit

From what I understand Soviet radar guided missiles were garbage, but their WVR IR missiles, plus the aircraft's IRST and Helmet Mounted Sight, were ahead of the West.

>>35091902
I've seen you post this exact same thing about Flanker pilots needing to do math before firing? Can you please elaborate on it? Because it makes literally no fucking sense at all.

All pilots take certain things into consideration before firing in BVR combat, but you make it sound like the Su-27 is anymore complicated than any other plane. I'd like to know exa fly why you think this way.

Last point: yes USSR would have lost, but I don't think they would have been smoked. It would be heavily in favor of NATO, but they wouldn't be pushovers like Iraq of Serbia. Itd be bloody.

>>35086382
>>35086499
Those are the 'monkey model' export versions.
They didn't have all the features of the fully equiped Russian version.

>>35086441

Where did the "Russian equipment is more robust for DA REAL WORL OPERATIN CUNDISHUNS not like fragile electronicized Western shit" meme even come from?

>>35092065
Might not answer your question directly, but its enlightening. I think its funny how the Russian pilot disparages the Falcon for not being rugged enough for the stresses of war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpPSPQq7oas

>>35092029
This stems from the Sukhoi simply displaying basic aircraft data but not performing any calculations on them. Whereas the fire control computer in US aircraft assist pilot with accurate firing of guns and missiles by calculating their aircraft’s position (fixtaking) versus the enemy combatant’s position, and properly leading the pilot with head-up display to radar intercept. Thus the Sukhoi pilot has to continuously calculate the relative positions, speeds, maneuvers (lots and lots of geometry), in order to maintain a successful radar lock and guide their missile home. The F-15,F-16 pilot simply lets the computer do that for them.

This is one of those areas like optics is one of those things that doesn't seem sexy, but completely changes the battlespace. It, like optics, is also something all nonwestern countries effectively overlook.

>>35092056
>>35090095
your complaint is not as valid as the F-16 boos, because the only F-16 ever shot down by another aircraft was a Greek F-16 shot down by a Turkish F-16.

File: 1430026796212.jpg (245KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1024x768px

>>35086363
The MiG-29's reliance on the Soviet's anachronistic ground control systems, poor engines, and undesirable ergonomics had a tendency to frustrate everyone that worked with them, all the way from the pilots to the mission planners.

The SU-27 had great performance. However, its dated avionics put more stress on the pilot compared to the superior digital systems in the west. Great endurance, large weapon capacity, and was highly maneuverable, let down by the Soviet Union's inability to build computers worth a damn.

>>35093822
I know DCS world isn't exactly true to life, but the functions of the display system should be accurate, no? If so, I don't really see what you mean. In an Su-27, I get a radar lock and the target shows up on the display to the bottom right, along with its direction relative to your position. Altitude and speed data is displayed. On the HUD, you are given a circle that shows you where the target is. You also have a line on the left of the HUD that shows you the optimal launch range. It isn't really very difficult to then figure out where you should fly to intercept.

>>35092065
Think in hindsight a lot of it came from either unfamiliarity or any kind of intimate examination of Soviet gear, what did manage to crawl out in the open was stuff like small arms which to their credit have some attributes that make them good battle weapons for troops with a low level of training.
The aircraft and vehicles from say the 1950's to late 70's where also comparatively simple, tough, easy to repair- but the downside is that Soviet production was geared to making fucking insane amounts of it and most of it had terrible quality control along with being inefficient. So yes the vehicle was easy to fix, but you're always fucking fixing something or other, or you might get lucky and pick an orange out of the pile of lemons that was just awesome.

There was also the use of some analogue electronic components which made a great fuss about being resistant to EMP attacks and could survive a nuclear war. Now to some extent yes, unshielded analogue components are resistant, however the downside is that valves are terrible things from a maintenance, volumetric space, power consumption and excessive heat perspective to the point you will go fucking mad finding the dud one.
It also obfuscates the fact that IC's and transistors in most western domestic vehicles aren't actually at that huge a risk from an EMP attack (as the movies always suggest) and the military stuff even from the 80's isn't likely to require much more than a breaker reset on a bad day if it goes off at all. But mostly it hides the fact that soviet IC and transistor technology and production was so far behind western and asian countries that it wasn't even funny.

Don't get me wrong, the Soviets made some cool stuff, their space, rocket tech was awesome and they where militarily competitive/excelled on a lot of levels up until the early 80's. But that was a long time ago now.

File: Sukhoi-T-10.jpg (129KB, 1109x374px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1109x374px

the sugoi is the best aircraft in the world with the best sustained turning rate

it's also the perfect size and has the best range, also cheapest considering the relative performance

>This whole thread

An impressively composed and insightful thread by /k/ standards. Is this because school started last week all over the country?

File: images1586595_su_that_gay_soc_ve_su34_noi_dia_cua_trung_quoc_ (1).jpg (31KB, 640x296px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x296px

Also the sugoi is better than the JSF, F22, J-31, and J-20 cost performance wise and within visual range. Also low freq radar will make stealth obsolete so all the other nations are wasting money.

Does anyone know any good books about the flanker? I'm really interested in learning about how it was to maintain, because the meme is that they are very hard to maintain but I would love to read a first hand account.

File: Japanese Mitsubishi F-2 over Yokohama mountain.jpg (98KB, 640x477px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 640x477px

Interesting forum posts about the viper's turning rate vs the fulcrum featuring "fulcrumflyer" who flew the jet in an exchange program. This what he said about the turning rates:

>Let me jump on this hand grenade ... With 500 hrs in the MiG-29 [plus 9>00 in the light-gray Eagle and 2000-plus in the Viper (Viper FWIC grad)], the Fulcrum will sustain a higher turn rate than the Eagle but not as high as the Viper. I've seen this in numerous 'engagements' against both plus I've flow the Viper against the MiG-29 many times. I do agree that the airplane can be very overrated with it being a better airshow airplane than a fighter.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=155456

Also nip viper is best viper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3lE9s-R2Rk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic_mwn3yGkw

File: 1.jpg (99KB, 1500x998px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1500x998px

>>35087254
>On topography not being as good
>On topography
Think you meant "on top of being." Lol.

Anyone know of any anime with the flanker in it?

>>35087882
>400 sorties

File: suhkoi_rafale.jpg (44KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 630x420px

>>35087762
Hilarious, two rubles have been added to your steam account.

There are a whole threads on airliners.net dedicated to the weakly crashes:

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1028153&sid=198e1965651f10039a405a782267ee72&start=50

>>35094651

In terms of sustained turn rate it's still either the F-16 or one of the Eurotriangles. Su-27 is too large to turn with the likes of F-16.

>>35094834
f fighters literally crash in the same amount

File: Shenyang J-15 2 top secret airplanes.jpg (69KB, 1024x371px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1024x371px

>>35094834
>>35094881
meh probably

Still though, the sugoi looks the best. Only thing that looks better is the tomcat. Suhkoi literally looks like a cobra with the engines mounted below the centerline and cockpit above.

Its really a shame that all the new aircraft will looks like doritos and flapjacks.

File: Shenyang-J-15-Flanker-D+-Prototype-2S.jpg (214KB, 768x431px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 768x431px

Oh yeah. I wonder if the J-11 has the same crappy maintenance reputation?

File: German-MiG-29A-Fulcrum.jpg (114KB, 960x651px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 960x651px

>Luftwaffe MiG-29

This is pure sex!

File: 20151222084803659.jpg (66KB, 950x633px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 950x633px

Also I noticed that the flanker is one of those planes that unironically looks better with two seats. Probably cause it's so damn big.

File: 1363929738135.jpg (49KB, 940x672px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 940x672px

>>35095047
it looks like its made from iron

How can we influence fighter design in the upcoming future and make fighters aesthetic again? Should we just meme that stealth is only for cucks and tweet Trumpo he is a cuck if he spends money stealth jew fighters and to suck putins dick so they abort the flapjack?

Can someone please work on defeating stealth completley with like some kind of distributed low frequency radar array or something?

>>35094164
What you are doing their is calculating the intercept path yourself. against a non maneuvering bomber, no problem. Against a maneuvering supersonic fighter, big problem. Oh and you need to be doing this while keeping up with where the other US planes are, where your friendly planes are, performing counter maneuvers as well as trying to bleed the US missiles of energy, etc.

Having fewer things you need to do in the cockpit, allows for consistently higher pilot performance. Again, not as sexy as "dude my plane can pull more Gs than yours!", but more important to actual functionality.

>>35094881
tell that to the YAKs

>>35094651
>>35094678
and the bait begins

>>35095085
I'm usually doing this against fighters. A fighter going supersonic, by the way, won't be changing directions very fast. It's easy to keep track of. Enemy targets appear as triangles in the direction they are heading. If it changes directions, I change mine.

Meanwhile, if I have awacs or am using TWR mode, I can keep track of other enemy targets, as well as friendlies. It's a useful situational map and I find it very intuitive to use. I also like that the radar scope is tied to HUD instead of a screen like on the F-15. It allows me to scan the horizon visually while I scan for targets simultaneously.

All in all, the Su-27 is fairly user-friendly. The one big downside is the analog SPO-15 RWR. That thing takes some time to interpret. However, as with anything, once you learn how to use it, it can be effective.

>>35095165
There are only a handful of pilots in the world who have flown both F-15's and Su-27s. I highly doubt you are one of them. If you are name your squadron.

>>35086836
>(due to friction)
due to compression

frictional heating is so small as to be virtually negligible

>>35095580
>not understanding how compression and friction are related

>>35095640
>making an irrelevant point
look it up friend

I don't know much, but I don't think the soviets ever reached technological parity with the US from 1960 onwards. This doesn't mean their fighters were trash, but they were comparable to western designs of 5-10 years earlier.
The western killcounts are bloated because shooting down Frescos with Phantoms, Fishbeds and Floggers with Eagles and Vipers while having numerical superiority and AWACS support is a turkey shoot.
The Fulcrums were a good overall design with shit execution because the USSR was falling to pieces by then.

>>35086665
that wouldn't invalidate the stats

As a serbfag, its pretty easy to see how those air to air losses stack up on Russian aircraft, during the 1999 NATO bombing, the second our MiG-29s got in the air they were detected and easy targets to NATO aircraft, couple of them were so poorly maintained that the radars weren't working, the missiles they were equipped were shit and there was no way in hell they could do anything meaningful against the NATO aircraft, but we still had to get them up to show to the people that we're doing something.

video related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZKMP8gnMCA
Dunno if it has translation

File: 1496867627152.png (94KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 300x450px

>>35086363
>Mig29
MiG-29 "Fulcrum": this fighter represented a major shift in the way Soviets approached their aircraft. As previously mentioned, the USSR had gone for quantity over quality, preferring large numbers of cheap, easily-operated forces. When the Yanks with Tanks introduced their fourth-generation aircraft, however, they were simply too good; the F-15 Eagle, in particular, boasts a record of 101 aerial victories, mostly against 3rd-gen Russian (Monkey Model Export) fighters, to zero losses. The Soviets looked at how to beat this kind of plane, and realized that their old Zerg Rush tactics just wouldn't work; they would need to put more eggs in one basket and build stronger, better-performing planes. The MiG-29 was the first plane designed via this philosophy, and (to Mikoyan and Gurevich's credit) it dropped jaws when Westerners first got a look at it in the late 80s, particularly at its high angle-of-attack capabilities, passive infrared scanner, and helmet-mounted missile sighting system. War games against former East German aircraft resulted in the MiG-29 getting absurdly lopsided kill ratios, and even an unupgraded one is a major threat in short-ranged air combat. It's also notable for its NATO reporting name, and its pilots found "Fulcrum" appealing and have adopted it for informal use.

>>35095454
he's talking about video games, dude. DCS.

File: __yakumo_yukari_touhou_.jpg (281KB, 1120x1400px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1120x1400px

>>35086363
>SU27
Su-27 "Flanker": the counterpart to the MiG-29, it fills the air-superiority role, making it the Russian equivalent to the F-15 and F-14. It also entered service in the 80s, flying from both runways and carrier decks. Along with the Fulcrum, the Flanker caused something of a panic in the American military, who had been counting on quantity vs quality and weren't sure if their planes could actually stand up against equal or superior planes. (Their concerns are justified, as both the MiG-29 and the Su-27 are excellent fighters by any standard and can hold their own against Western counterparts, and in some parameters are far ahead.) Out of this panic and resulting Arms Race came America's current air-superiority fighter, a fifth-generation fighter called the F-22 Raptor; Russia is preferring to focus on upgrading its Fulcrum and Flanker designs into 4.5th-gen fighters, but undoubtedly some actual 5th-gen airframes are in development. (The Flanker's replacement, the Sukhoi PAK FA, is the only one Russia has gone public with; due to a shortage of funds, they are holding off decisions on a MiG-29 replacement until the T-50 program as stabilized.)

>>35086363
>hiw did they matched the west in the 80s?

They didn't.

>matching Western aircraft a decade later
>while the next generation of Western aircraft were already prepared to get out in the early 90s

They clearly lost the fighter race already, and later we realized that they also lost the race in all other areas like tanks.

>>35095454
It's DCS world. Probably the best mil sim available to ordinary consumers. I'm not going to pretend that the behavior of missiles or flight dynamics are 100% realistic or even close, but I'm just talking about the pilot interface systems (the cockpit), which is publicly available knowledge and there's no reason why it wouldn't be simulated exactly.

All I was talking about is the way the two aircraft display target data.

>>35095794
>so poorly maintained that the radars weren't working

Sad

>>35086657
>80s
>AMRAAM
What?

File: Freedom Fulcrum.jpg (259KB, 2752x1251px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 2752x1251px

>>35095047
Let's make that an AMERICAN Fulcrum

>>35095980
This. Su-27, F-15, even the MiG-29 all constantly adjust maximum firing range and optimal firing range every second based on all variables. The math is done by the fire control system, not the pilot.

Your altitude, speed, heading, and their altitude, speed, heading, and bearing are all factored into determining what the maximum firing range is for a non-maneuvering target and what the optimal firing range is for a maneuvering bandit.

The F-15 does have the stronger radar that can detect more and farther, and has a better RWR, but it isn't on an entire different level over the Flanker.

In fact the Flankers datalink and display make it have arguably better SA. F-15 has track while scan though which lets you track a target and see everyone else.

>>35094815
A jet training air base can launch as many as 100 sorties a day. Consider how insane it would be to have 2 Class-A mishaps per week

>>35094651
>perfect size
B8, but seriously, the SU-27 is fucking massive

File: Flanker splinter.jpg (325KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 2560x1600px

>>35097563
Flanker is a big girl

>>35095824
>and carrier decks in the 80's

>>35086499
>Who were the russian jets losing to?
EVERYONE

>>35092065
A few sources, one being a general stereotype of everything Russian being simple and rugged, and another being Pierre Sprey and his gaggle of windowlickers sperging out for forty years and counting about warfare advancing beyond WW1.

>>35094416
This relates to one of my favorite jokes.

Armenian Radio was asked, is it true that American skyscrapers are the tallest in the world?
Yes, it's true, but on the other hand the Soviet-made transistors are the largest in the world.

>>35094678
>Also the sugoi is better than the JSF, F22, J-31, and J-20 cost performance wise and within visual range. Also low freq radar will make stealth obsolete so all the other nations are wasting money.

-t. Aviation and electronics layman

>>35096875
Does the Flanker not have TWS?
I also thought the F-15 had a datalink.

>>35098926
Funny thing is now they're really popular in some hobbies where people need a high voltage, germanium PNP transistor for music gear like amps and some types of pedals. Years ago I had a workmate rebuilding this ancient guitar amp and was hunting around for them, then one day a package arrives for him in the workshop.

Swear to god, these things where like 40V, 15W and they where the size of pygmy cocks.

>>35094678
>and within visual range.

>If we make it into visual range you'll be sorry!

If.

>>35099039
I've seen old Russian components used in radios too. I heard that in the final years of SAGE, the US was buying vac tubes from Russia to keep it going.

>>35096875
The Flanker has Track while Scan. It just cannot be used to lock and fire on multiple targets.

>>35098963
Yes, it has TWS. F-15 also has datalink, I think. I'm not 100% sure on the latter, more like 98% sure.

>>35099058
Yeah outside of the USSR it really was a case of finding either some box in the back of a TV repair store (that's a rare place now) or doing business with screaming, bat shit insane backyard hobbyists that still make them in some dingy basement.
Mind you considering how low SAGE ran for, kind of remarkable for a piece of IT history.

>>35086363
as far as su 27 and the variants go we dont know shit
only when the indian ones go to red flag with severely pegged radar and EW systems (i think i heard that one of the reasons they dont wanna buy more su is because russians never gave them aircraft with the full capabilities)

>>35099127
>doing business with screaming, bat shit insane backyard hobbyists that still make them in some dingy basement.
Thank god for backyard hobbyists.

>>35099056
In an engagement with multiple aircraft on each side, high ECM environments, and multiple directions that the aircraft are attacking from, it's almost inevitable that you're going to end up in WVR at some point. At least, that's probably the case for 80s era engagements. Nowadays, with F-22s and F-35s, it's probably not going to happen.

>>35099234
its going to end up on dogfights most probably
since f22s and f35s wont be able to see the s57s
and the s57 wont be able to see the f22s/f35s
they both will ping and use ew and that will only shows that there is a stealth out there

whoever visual spot first wins

>>35099248
>since f22s and f35s wont be able to see the s57s

lel

> report in Combat Aircraft by Russian journalist Piotr Butoswki from the 2011 Moscow Air Show said, “Based on scant Russian data the T-50 has a radar cross section lower than 0.5m2
>In 2013, Russia behind the Headlines, which is state-owned publication, said that the PAK FA RCS was 5.3 square feet which is almost exactly .5 square meters.
>In 2014 and 2015, two Russian reports said its RCS was “0.1 to 1 square meter” which implies a central value of about .5 square meter.

So - tl;dr, .5m^2 vs .001 or less.

The Su57 is going to get picked up long before it can see its opponents. That's basically B1B tier "stealth."

>>35099285
yes and we know how trusted sites that claims "russians" are so far right?

wasnt the same site that kept claiming that russian EW capabilities were below shit and then we all saw what happened in syria?
seems legit

>>35099248
Lot of that comes down to who has an AWACS that's not sleeping on the job and sharp enough to pick through the shit.

>>35099160
They really do have their uses, particularly in telco, which is only slower than the military when it comes to upgrading gear.
>you find the mystery box from 1980something on the network
>apparently its the Jesus nut holding the whole shambles together
>no one actually knows how to fix it...

Except that one old bloke you end up finding via ancient, mouldering HR records that might be still alive and know what the fuck it is, then end up at his place with a slab of beer to trade for his time.

>>35099301
The burden of proof is on u m8.

If you've got a single drop of evidence for the absurd claim that the PAK-FA is as stealthy as an F35 or F22, show it.

>>35099315
the burdain of proof is in both parties cause no one has provided info with hard PROOFS
only staged red flag attacks under cgi forgetting that cgi is a thing only in third world villages nowdays

>>35099303
the problem with usa isnt the awacs the real problem is the air tanker
in a hypothetical war with russia or china they will have to operate so far out because of the missile range that it will defeath the sole purpose of those stealths to have such a low combat radius

>>35099333
>"Stealths"
>Low combat radius
>Implying the US would have any problem refueling planes

>>35099367
no please provide info how a fucking kc 135 will be able to be protected under the range or russian or chinese missiles

unless you are still implying that murica will always have a field day even if the enemy is literally the ancients from stargate level of technology

File: vatnews.jpg (63KB, 567x438px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 567x438px

>>35099333
Americans have provided evidence of <.001 RCS.

Russians claim .5 RCS.

Given American propensities for concealing capability and Russian predilections for bigging up their propaganda projects, the disparity could well be worse.

Why do you even bother claiming planes with multiple orders of magnitude difference in stealth will see each other at the same time?

>>35099401
they provided evidence? really i must have been sleeping

lets get real no one has provided a single thing only claims they CANT provide hard proof evidence about such a thing

File: 1490903781586.jpg (244KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 500x500px

>>35092056

>>35099863
>poorly trained foreign pilots
That one's always my favorite, because half the time the "poorly trained" pilots were trained in Moscow itself.

The Ethiopians, for example, went from having arguably the best pilots in Africa who had trained regularly with the USAF to having MiG-23s regularly fall out of the sky despite "extensive" training in the same facilities the VVS used for its pilots.

>>35099248
I meant in a scenario where F-22s and F-35s are up against non-stealth aircraft.

But you're right in theory. If two opposing forces field equally stealthy aircraft (not sure the Pak fa is to that level), the fight is always going to end up WVR. We may even see a return to the dogfights of old. Of course, all of this is assuming that nations won't be able to develop radars or other sensors capable of defeating stealth.

>>35100082
the yugoslavians were able to pick the f117 with a radar from the 60s

the only true stealth aircraft that cant be picked so far is the b2 the rest is izi pizi for anyone that has a 3d/aesa radar

File: proud russian technology.jpg (232KB, 700x444px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 700x444px

>>35099408
You keep avoiding the question.

Where is your rationale for the claim the PAK-FA is a similar level of stealth as the F22 and F35? Can you point to a single cite beyond vodka-soused delusions of relevance? Can you even construct an argument?

>>35100158
For four reasons:
1. low and slow
2. open bomb bay doors
3. retarded reused route planning
4. optical cueing based on all the above

So your example is meaningless with regards to modern tech and/or non-retards...and war. So you shot down one airplane, wow. Meantime the USAF was styling all over Serbs, at will.

>>35100158
The f117 is a very old first generation stealth design, and there were several other factors that helped them shoot it down. F-22s and f-35s are not going to be so easy to detect, even for AESA radars. However, I don't want to say it's impossible. Stealth may eventually become obsolete.

>>35100186
I've seen that pic so many times before. I imagine there must be a reason for it since every other image of Su-34 cockpits don't feature a 3rd party gps bolted to the dash. Perhaps the glonass receiver was down/malfunctioning and they needed a quick fix.

So since the F-117 being shot down, has any piloted stealth aircraft been lost to enemy fire?

>>35100311
My mistake, It's an Su-24 cockpit.

>>35100332
None that the public knows about.

>>35100268
>Stealth may eventually become obsolete.
The point of a stealth aircraft is not to make it impossible to detect, its to make it extremely difficult to detect. Its not a single feature that can be ruled obsolete. That and the alternative is to have even easier to detect aircraft that can be engaged from farther away with missiles that are only getting better and better.

>>35095047
Speaking of the German MiG-29s, it's important to note that they were using the A model, and NATO's judgement of the fulcrum's performance was made with respect to this fact. Therefore, its BVR capability was deemed inferior to the F-16. However, the Mig-29S, which was not exported, featured an upgraded radar, increased range, and the ability to use R-77s. It would have been on par with the latest f-16s of the time in BVR.

>>35100493
>R-77s

Its been years since I've seen an aircraft carrying them, did they not make very many? All the Russian fighters over Syria seem to be using R-27, or at least the ones I've found pics of.

>>35100482
I understand that. What I mean by "obsolete" is that the the design features meant to reduce detection by radar may at some point offer no practical benefit. If such sophisticated sensors can be designed, it may come to the point that radars will detect a stealth aircraft at the physical limit of the horizon as soon as a non-stealth aircraft. I'm no expert on radar technology. I don't how feasible that is and in what time frame.

IR stealth will always be a useful feature, however.

>>35100544
>IR stealth will always be a useful feature, however.

Why? If radar can overcome stealth, why can't optical wavelengths do the same?

If anything, it's going to be the reverse and optical staring arrays or quantum-entangled lidar will improve faster.

File: su-35withR-77.jpg (66KB, 1024x721px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1024x721px

>>35100515
I've seen a few. I imagine Russian fighters in Syria aren't expecting to engage enemy fighters anyway, so the R-77s are probably being kept in storage.

>>35100567
IR sensors are inherently limited by factors such as weather and have not been able to approach the tracking distances that radars can. However, I shouldn't have used the word "always." What I meant was that IR stealth will be useful for far longer considering the disparity in detection ranges between IR and radar.

>>35100664
But what's the point of bothering with IR optimization if god-mode radars can vector missiles in from 120km away?

>>35100605
I'd heard that the airforce wasn't really happy with them, might be the case since they only seem to fly with them once in a blue moon.

>>35100702
IR missiles generally do not give the enemy a launch warning. IR sensors are also stealthy; the enemy will not know that you are detecting them. Whereas, if you lock an enemy with your radar, they know you are there and where you are because you are setting off their radar warning receiver. Likewise, radar homing missiles will set off the RWR and let the enemy know that a missile is heading towards them.

However, I believe the F-22 (and presumably the F-35) have some methods to rapidly cycle the frequency of their radar to avoid setting off an enemy's RWR, but I don't think anyone knows how effective it is or exactly how it works, if it does.

>>35092056
get one a space on Vatnik Bingo

>>35100808
But if stealth is dead, then you already know the enemy is there, and vice versa, so launch warnings, lock detection etc aren't helpful.

LPI isn't a trade secret, and it's very effective. It's simply emitting on different frequencies and summing the results computationally.

>>35100808
Apparently the F-35's DAS can actually detect missile launches, though I don't know the range for that anecdote.

>>35100998
It can detect and characterize tank cannons firing on the ground. Missiles are no sweat.

Source: a Lockmart commercial showing footage of DAS doing this.

>>35100808
Modern RWRs on the A-10C, F/A18E, and pretty much the entire US fighter fleet can detect any kind of missile launch within a certain range.

This does include friendly launches and AT weapons launched by ground units.

>>35101051
How would a RWR track an IR missile? Last I saw, there was a separate system for that which was a few tiny IRST balls mounted on the bottom of the fuselage.

>>35101051
RWR (radar warning receiver) can only warn you to radar guided missiles, though there are some kinds of of semi active missiles can be used in a way that will not alert the target.

File: 1299630042815.jpg (1MB, 2784x1856px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2784x1856px

>>35097616

indeed she is!

>>35100998
>>35101051
>>35100949
I have to admit, my knowledge of modern air to air combat is focused mostly on the 70s-90s. I am aware that newer aircraft have a means by which to detect IR (or any) missile launches, but no aircraft has a means by which to know whether or not it is being tracked by an IRST, which still gives IR a useful niche in air combat.

As for LPIR, sure; it's bees knees. It's possible future RWR systems may find a trick to counter that. Everything that transmits a signal leaves a signature of some kind. It only takes someone to figure out the pattern of seemingly random radar sweeps and frequencies.

However, I believe the active radar homing seeker head of an amraam will still set off the RWR, so even a MiG-21 will know a missile has been launched at some point, usually by the time it's too late. When does the active seeker activate on an AIM-120C? Something like 10 or 12 nm, I think? Don't know about the AIM-120D.

>>35100949
>But if stealth is dead, then you already know the enemy is there, and vice versa, so launch warnings, lock detection etc aren't helpful.

No, not necessarily. If you are intercepting an enemy from an angle which is not covered by their radar, you can keep your radar off and rely on your IRST to track the enemy. This means you know where they are and they don't know that you are even there.

>>35101092
>>35101112
he's probably confusing something like MAWS for traditional RWRs

>>35100405
Too stealthy to make the news

>>35101112
>>35101461
I am, because we still called it the RWR.

>>35086657
The F-15 and F-16 pilot who went to Germany to test drive Mig-29's said the IRST was pretty much useless and WAY overhyped. He said it can essentially be ignored outside labratory tier testing.

>>35086657
>>35102978

Source:
>http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

Claiming the IRST gave the Mig-29 or Su-27 any sort of WVR advantage over the F-15/F-16 is flat wrong.

>>35086863
>heir IRST + helmet mounted sight was very effective WVR.
see:
>>35102978
>>35103016

>>35103024
Helmet mounted site was the biggest thing they had for them. Well before AIM-9X came around and gave the R-73 a 60 degree off boresight angle capability and it is a missile that could make those turns even very close in. IRST is useless in a visual dogfight though, most usefulness is in GCI directed engagements to kill unaware bombers with R-27ET.

File: DLZ.png (1MB, 1834x1922px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1834x1922px

>>35095165
Does the SU-27 in DCS give DLZ indications like pic related from Falcon 4.0?

>>35103433
yes

>>35101383
I think the active seeker on the AIM-120 family in general activates around 8-10nm. The missile can take midcourse guidance from the firing platform so in theory you could drive the missile all the way to the target without ever lighting up the active seeker head, but if that capability exists it isn't advertised. You could even get that datalink guidance from a third party if the system were designed for it, kind of like buddy lasing when dropping an LGB.

>>35103315
The fact that you keep using R-27ET and ER instead of T and R is all I need to know.

You play too much DCS and think its anything inductive of reality.
Find me one picture of ER's or ET's being used ever.

>>35103609
They're used all the time. I say R-27ET and ER instead of AA-10C and D because most people on this board know R-27 better than NATO designations. Don't think the C/Ds have actually been used in combat yet but they are deploying exclusively with the chucks and ducks (and some adders) in Syria.

And yeah, I play a lot of DCS (with is why I know the Russian terminology,) but it makes me upset that AIM-120s suck so much in it. If it was realistic then there would be no reason to fly anything other than F-15C, unless they incorporated realistic jamming. My day job is F-15E pilot, so I'm well aware of the capabilities of those missiles. I just know not to ever get in a merge with a flanker or fulcrum though, because we still don't have aim-9x in our jets and aren't nearly maneuverable enough to take on a jet with archers.

>>35103708
Shit you actually fly the mudhen? Mad jealous.

I really haven't seen many pictures of the C and D's. Those flankers that intercept stuff are always carrying standard R-27's it seems.
You don't even really see Adders all that much either., I just don't think Russia has the money for it.

I wonder if the upgraded R-27's are worth a shit, considering the base has the work hit % I've ever seen.

>>35095083
Why would I want to sacrifice performance for such a stupid thing as looks?

File: ADFX-01_Morgan_Infinity_flyby.jpg (74KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1280x720px

>>35103708
You fly f-15s? That is cool. How good is the F-15 at maneuvering in general? My understanding is that it has god tier sustained turn rates and excels in the super sonic regime.

Also, what is the fastest you have gone and have you ever gone supersonic below 1000ft?

>>35104789
Because figher aircraft are sex and I am never going to fly one and my interaction with them is just looking at pictures and watching air shows. That is why I am biased towards aesthetics. Stealth aircraft look boring and I am super disappointed that all of China's stealth planes have the same f-22/f-35 lockmart nose. Same with other nations making stealth prototypes.. their noses all look the same and somehow the su-57 even managed to make an uglier beak for their flapjack.

From an armchair general autism perspective. It is super boring to counter stealth with more stealth and it would give me a boner if someone decided to counter stealth using a different strategy like for example just building more cheap fighters kind of like the mig-21 and having a doctrine that spreads out their little cheap fighters so that they can use their radar together.

Another option would be to build a hypersonic fighter which would give me a massive erection. The problem is that if something like that was developed it wouldnt be public.

I would like for the russians to build a super duper Sugoi with variable geometry wings like something out of ace combat, and focus on maneuverability while having some reasonable stealth features.

Lastly, stealth really may get btfo sometime soon in the future. Radar is photons so someone may figure out a way to exploit some kind of quantum effect that negates stealth such as very short pulses of low frequency radar waves or a distributed network that uses computers to determine find stealths. Low freq radar might be good enough to get a missile in the general vicinity of a stealth aircraft and then it would switch to it's IR seeker for the last 5km or so.

>>35094881
Counting the 104 and -8, maybe

File: hypersonic_fighter.jpg (118KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1024x1024px

Rate my autism.

Why don't modern fighter aircraft implement more organically shaped features like "bat" wings? Instead they use straight edges like traditional deltas but if that was the optimal shape in terms of vortex management and lift to drag, then why dont we find shapes like that in the wings of birds or bats?

>>35094164
>DCS
>comparing video games to real life
Get out.

>>35105704
OMG ARE YOU TRIGGERED?!?! SOME OF THE FEATURES ARE MODELED QUITE ACCURATELY AND THE POSTER DISCLAIMERED HIS RESPONSE BY SAYING HE KNOWS ITS NOT 100 PERCENT LIKE REALITY.

GIT OVER IT. That particular feature may be modeled accurately. DCS has a very competent and skillful dev team.

>>35103708
THIS POSTER IS A FUCKING ACTUAL F-15 PILOT AND HE SAID HE LIKES DCS. IF IT WAS SO SHITTY THEN I DONT THINK REAL FIGHER PILOTS WOULD LIEK THE FUKKEN GAME. ALTHOUGH HE ALSO COMMENTED THE AMRAAN WAS MODELED INACCURATELY.

FUCKING EDGELORD TEENAGERS THESE DAYS. BOOMERS SHOULD REALLY HAVE BEEN BETTER PARENTS DESU.

>>35105759
Listen armchair you cannot compare video games to real life, especially consumer grade garbage like DCS.

Fuck off to /v/ where you can discuss video games with other fatasses or start talking about real shit which has nothing to do with DCS.

>>35105674
Probably due to high speed performance issues. Bats don't fly at mach 2, and their wings are designed more with high maneuverability in mind too.

File: bat wind tunnel.jpg (22KB, 300x299px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x299px

>>35105782
>>35103708 IS A LITErALLY f-15 PILOTS AND HE LIKES DCS REE STOP BEING AN ELITIST SPERGLORD

>>35105806
Yeah but things like raked wingtips help transonic performance and vortex management. I honestly think they choose simple shapes for wings only because they are too lazy to do the calculations.

>>35105821
And I am a F-15C pilot and say DCS is a video game and take your garbage to /v/.

>>35105674
Because birds and bats don't go transonic or supersonic, among other reasons. Does your name begin with a G?

>>35086382
>leaves out Su-27 and MiG-15

kys my man

>>35105759
>EVEN WITH CRUISE CONTROL YOU STILL HAVE TO STEER, ANON.
Get some goddamn self control anon, you don't have to tell. It's too early for this shit.

>>35100515
Original R-77 was never serially manufactured. Only few years ago it's derivative RVV-SD went into serial production for Russian AF.

>>35105821
>I honestly think they choose simple shapes for wings only because they are too lazy to do the calculations.
You're retarded. Wing design is done by selecting the general parameters you need - aspect ratio, wing area, etc. - and then using any number of analytical tools to optimize it for the mission at hand. Like this NASA report shows, the focus of the detailed design of the wing is to optimize the lift distribution across the wing, which is something that can and has been solved analytically.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19840007047.pdf

>>35104381
Yeah, adders are decent missiles but it seems they don't have the money for them. Probably big reason R-27s were bad was because of radar being so susceptible to notches, but with upgrades Su-27SMs their radar can do pretty decent with them. Main tactic to beat their missiles is always to kinematically defeat, not to dodge.
>>35105395
F-15E has pretty shit sustained and instantaneous, it is a different beast with the heavier wings meant to hold bombs and CFTs bolted on. Still though, an F-15E with the PW-229s would be epic to have in a dogfight if they took the CFTs off.
>>35105759
I do like the game but it is really frustrating how a lot of the systems are modeled and also dumbed down, plus like I mentioned before the missiles not being accurately modeled. Makes it impossible to use real life BVR tactics in the game with how shit the missiles are. Most fun I have is just doing 1vs1 gunfights because NOBODY in DCS knows how to probably get into and stay in the control zone, everyone just max AB and max G the entire time until they're drained on energy or overshooting right past you.

>>35107887
>tfw don't have to know shit about BFM because of the Fulcrums ridiculous t/w ratio and shlem/archer combo

File: e7de6ec4408d80b8a146d95ca680a8de.jpg (39KB, 617x619px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 617x619px

>>35105881
Wow you may have a cool job but you act like an edgy teenager online. The F-15*E* pilot>>35103708 said that he likes DCS and you'd think if the game models were sooooooooo inaccurate then he wouldn't play the game. We're on goddamn /k so if you have a problem with armchair generals then make your own fucking forum with cryptographic verification for l33t oper8ers like urself. Not to mention actual pilots use sims so their discussion isnt completely without merit. For the particular feature the anon had used DCS as a reference for the in-game model may be accurate and therefore would be a legit reference. SORRY WE DONT HAVE SU-27 PILOTS HERE. I know that must be such a disappointment for a l33t faggot like your self.

>>35106103
jajjajaa rules of the internet jajaja nice meme jajaja xDdd r u M00t?

>>35105903
OK but the B-2 does go transonic and was modeled after birds. Furthermore IMO features like LERX look more organic and the F-18 and Suhkoi are famous for them. The flanker in particular looks organic but I wonder if they were limited by manufacturing techniques and if they had 3D printers they would have made the shapes even more flowing and organic?

>>35107186
That is a cool link and skimmed through it but will read it more in depth later. The paper mainly is about,

>A natural means of achieving efficient supersonic maneuvering
is based on controlling the nonlinear inviscid crossflow on the wing in a
manner analogous to the attached flow supercritical aerodynamic design methods.

>optimize the lift distribution across the wing, which is something that can and has been solved analytically.

True but if they had more sophisticated modelling techniques dont you think the wing might actually look like something OTHER than a triangle? Those shapes are easier to model and that is why they are used. Airliners have wings with differing sweep across the wing like the 787 for the transonic regime. More sophisticated = more organic.

>>35107942
Meh, you can still defeat the archers in the game decently. Just come out of AB and flare like a madman as soon as you see the missile come off the rails. And MiG-29 isn't that great in the game in guns only. Mirage 2000 is OP as fuck right now though, if you really want to gun people dead.

>>35107980
>True but if they had more sophisticated modelling techniques dont you think the wing might actually look like something OTHER than a triangle?
Realistically probably not outside of very niche applications. Supersonic aerodynamics are stupidly simple, so even transonic and high subsonic aircraft end up conforming to the fairly simple rules of supersonic aerodynamics. There are parts where they have analytically solved for the "best" solution - that NASA report is one of them, although I've talked to the author and he says that that wing is pretty much useless.

>more sophisticated = more organic
Not necessarily, and organic doesn't imply good. Remember that birds and other flying animals weren't engineered for the best solution, but rather they stumbled into this niche over eons of mutations. Birds have much different operational considerations than aircraft, so, even if they were hyper-optimized for their niche, their wings wouldn't necessarily be useful elsewhere.

>>35107980
>and was modeled after birds.
It was modeled to have a low radar return, carry a shitload of bombs very far, and to not have vertical stabilizers, not to look like a bird.
I think I recognize your artstyle, is your name Gabe?

>>35100209
holy fucking shit i dont even know if i should breath or laugh

first of all lets all cut back from retardness here and be a bit serious

they were able to detect it because they change the wavelength of the radar
that is it the missile didnt even needed to track it since the radar was already on its tail

america didnt do shit on yugoslavia till one month before the shit ended
because
a) the russians already gave them the means to intercept and decode their communications
b) they were actually competent enough to know what to do
c)its well documented that 90% of the hits nato claimed wasnt even their real target and almost all the targets usa had never really did anything thanks to a)
d) once they realised that the yugoslavians were able to intercept their communications it was the moment that they started to bomb the shit out of the biggest cities
if they didnt had realised what they yugoslavians were doing they would have probably face another vietnam on their ass

now lets get back on the "modern"era

do you even know how the ram coating works and what wavelengths in relation to the surface area it can absorb? there is a direct correlation between the length of the wave and the size of the surface this wont ever change you cant just slap rectangles on the f22 and call it the day
>>35100268
the f117 at the time was a very new plane
and no that was basicly it it all depends on the wavelength that the airplane cant absorb or deflect or or or once they found it the plane was blinking like a fucking christmas tree to their radars
so is the fate of every stealth currently in the world that is up against any aesa/3d radar only a fool will believe that a country with the means to create a stealth aircraft doesnt have already the means to counter it...

File: phantom.jpg (53KB, 1400x1100px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1400x1100px

>>35107186
Also want to add that yes, i am aware that super sonic shockwaves are a cone with a straight leading edge BUT what I am more curious about is why the trailing edges of the wings are always perfectly straight and if that really is the end all be all optimal way to shape wings for supersonic flight and whether those shapes are just a product of the limitations of their mathematic models?

Also curving the wing up or down like how the f-4 has gullwings can help with control surface authority and I think that with the F-4 the jagged way the ways were bent up is a limit of the manufacturing techniques of the time and a more modern f-4 would have gently upward curving wings to achieve the same effect, and IMO that would look more organic.

>>35107980
>and if they had 3D printers

3D printers are nice if you want to make a few complex shaped items with minimal setup fuss and the materials used don't matter all that much. They suck arse for mass production, can seldom handle any material with performance worth talking about, and just forget composites man. Thus they have little use in mass production of anything, and especially not when making high performance aircraft.

>>35108420
>Shoot down and damage fewer aircraft than the Iraqis did in gulf war 1 or 2
>We we we let them bomb us!!!

Jesus Christ..

>>35108520
talk to me when you actually LEARN a bit of history

File: LOOK_AT_THE_WINGLETS_THEY_ARE_LIKE_FEATHERS.jpg (1010KB, 1840x1063px) Image search: [Google]

1010KB, 1840x1063px

>>35107887
>it is a different beast with the heavier wings
Wow i didnt realize that the strike eagle was so different.

>frustrating how a lot of the systems are modeled and also dumbed down
So the f-15 is NOT accurately modeled? Is the radar and targeting systems accurate whatsoever? Do you think that the anon commenting about how he thinks the su-27 does not require mental calculations is wrong then?

>>35108402
Anon there is no way that it's a coincidence that the side profile of the B-2 matches up perfectly with a hawk. That might be because their models are so good and nature also finds the optimum aerodynamic shape but I think it's more likely the designers drew inspiration from nature. Also my name is not Gabe and my art style is shitty and noobish.

>>35108161

>Supersonic aerodynamics are stupidly simple, so even transonic and high subsonic aircraft end up conforming to the fairly simple rules of supersonic aerodynamics.
Okay, but if you compare the designs of the 60s like the x-15 or starfighter they are much more simple and less sophisticated than the Sr-72 concept or blackswift which have flowing lines and were designed with computers instead of slide rules. Those look organic to me like what nature would have designed a super sonic bird to look like.

>their wings wouldn't necessarily be useful elsewhere.
I get that but there still might be analogous details which could benefit from a more flowing natural design. One example is the wings of the 787 which flow like an artist designed them compared to the way older airliners just had variations of trapezoids basically, but even then they had shock bodies and such which look very organic. Also when bird are landing or taking off they "feather" their wings which I think does the same thing that winglets do and combat draggy vorticies. Pic related: Look at the wing tip devices this artist came up with. They look like feathers sort of.

>>35108567
Are you disputing that fewer aircraft were downed or damaged in Allied Force than in either Gulf War?

>>35108463
>why the trailing edges of the wings are always perfectly straight
So for supersonic flight they've got this term called supersonic leading/trailing edge. It effectively means that the angle of whatever edge you're looking at is less than the angle of the Mach cone. The significance of this is that, if the edge is supersonic, then the flow on either side of the wing can't "communicate" with eachother (best way I can describe it). The significance of that is that, for a supersonic leading edge, the drag-due-to-lift characteristics change significantly. Subsonic leading edges also allow you to use rounded-nose airfoils without significantly compromising the supersonic performance. As far as trailing edges go, the impact is less important, especially compared to the benefit of having all that extra wing area.

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/ConfigAeroSupersonicNotes.pdf
check pages 10-19 and 10-20 - it explains it better than I can. It's from the same guy who wrote that NASA report.

As for the F-4, the reason for tipping up the wingtips (and canting down the tail) was purely pragmatic - McDonnell had the entire plane designed and then realized they had a longitudinal stability issue. Canting down the tail wasn't enough, and, although the normal solution would be adding dihedral, that would fuck up all the structures in the wing, so McDonnell compromised by just tipping up the outer sections.

And there are "organic" as you'd describe it design tools for aircraft that've been around for a while. You just never hear about it because the results are so subtle. There's codes floating around for optimizing wing twist distributions that originated back when fortran was still the coding language everyone used.

>>35108586
>talks about yugoslavia
>showcases how the yugoslavians pretty much avoided almost everything till the last month
HURR DURR GULF WAR MUH BERZ ON THE THE MIDDLE EAST HURR DURR

seriously if you dont wanna have any serious convo just dont reply

>>35108611
You're talking about how incredibly competent the Serbs were, yet they did less damage to air forces than the Iraqis, so please tell me how they're so incredibly competent then when they allowed enemy air assets to operate with near impunity despite having vastly superior equipment. I'm legitimately curious.

File: Mark-One-Carbon-Fiber-3D-Printer-2.jpg (140KB, 960x484px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 960x484px

>>35108475
Anon 3D printers are now used to make some of the high performance parts in the new GE turbofans and in the future metal 3D printers could use a completely different method which produces single crystal castings for example. Just because 3D printers suck now that doesnt mean in the future there wont be some way to mass produce things t-1000 style.

And composites are basically fabrics but there could also be a way to 3D print diamonds or graphite style materials or even ceramics or carbon-reinforced-carbon. Also there could be highly advances mechanisms that weave composites together like a sewing machine.

Also my point was that the flanker looks very organic but probably was limited at some point by manufacturing and I imagine that if they had no constraints the design would have looked even more flowing and organic.

>>35108625
as i said >>35108611
if you dont have ANYTHING TO TALK ABOUT then dont fucking reply

if you think a war is only destruction i have bad news for you

File: FRY-SAM-Shots-MR1365.jpg (49KB, 640x550px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x550px

>>35108644
I'm legitimately asking. As not even a quarter of all SAM launches recorded happened "in the last month" as you claim.

>>35108585
>but I think it's more likely the designers drew inspiration from nature

Unlikely, but frankly, utterly irrelevant. In science or engineering you can let yourself be inspired by the pimples on your wives ass or the mildew patterns on your ceiling, it doesn't matter. What matters is that you in the end make something that works (through a lot of hard work, continuous refinement, doing the math, etc), and through testing/experiments show that it works. Whatever mostly unrelated thing your brains claims is behind it all is at best a neat anecdote to tell when everyone's proper drunk.

>>35108585
Actually, the real radars give more data and you can manipulate them a lot more than in game. More auto-acquisition modes too, and with JHMCS you can cue the radar using auto-acq modes. Also nice that the bullseye position of where your cursors are on the radar is displayed, so you can give a common reference to all people no matter their position on which person you just shot at rather than giving BRAA references from your ownship position which means nothing to other people. The only thing that requires mental calculation is basic math on stern conversions (for if you're trying to get WVR and behind someone for a VID while going pure pursuit and difficult to see.) Most pilot math is just based on rules of thumb that are easy to figure out real time when you're closing at a mile every 3 seconds. All our intercept numbers for when to notch, when to exit, etc are set in stone too because doing the mental math would be impossible without that. I don't know how much data a flanker has on their radar screen, but they generally don't have as good of avionics as US so might be more difficult for them. I assume they have similar tactics but less pilot experience, which is what really matters when things are moving so quickly that muscle memory is key.

>>35108585
okay first of all, that pic is pants on head retarded.

As far as supersonics go, you're comparing vastly different aircraft. The X-15 was a hypersonic research vehicle. It went fast enough that conventional supersonic theory breaks down, so it requires its own special design features. The F-104 was a flawed aircraft, but certain elements were actually ideal for supersonic flight - namely, the wing. The concepts you mentioned are just that - concepts - and, though they may reflect realistic thinking, they're designed for an entirely different regime of supersonic flight. It's hard to say anything definitive on them because we don't have anything but concept art, but odds are they've used some kind of computational method to optimize airflow around the aircraft.

Even then, fairly crude looking designs are surprisingly effective compared to sleeker ones. Supersonic L/Dmax tends to decline as Mach increases, but the XB-70 still managed an L/D of over 7, while the SR-71 was "just" 6.6 at the same speed, and the B-58 was only 4.5 at Mach 2. The Concorde was better, coming in at 7.4, but the relatively "crude" design of the XB-70 actually worked spectacularly well.

Just because a bird has something doesn't make it feasible. Yes, we have incorporated concepts from birds before, but the theory behind flows - especially unsteady flows like vorticies - is so absurdly complicated that you can't just go slapping things on planes because it looks like it'll work. Even conceptually simple ideas like winglets are absurdly complicated from a design perspective.

>>35108656
its like im talking to a trump wall
you cant be this dense you should really learn and read
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvgyiFCoG0U

File: B-2-by-morther-nature-comparison.jpg (278KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1024x683px

>>35108602
>http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/ConfigAeroSupersonicNotes.pdf
Another cool link which i will read when i have time but I am familiar with what you mean about the wing "communicating" due to flow separation.

>As far as trailing edges go, the impact is less important, especially compared to the benefit of having all that extra wing area.
True but what if you were able to add extra wing area that look like a "bat" wing which allowed for extra fuel without a huge addition of drag? Doesnt that idea work both ways?

>>35108674
True but I still don't think it's beneficial to entirely ignore nature's solutions. If someone analyzes birds or bats and figures out a way to optimize aircraft, even subtlety, then that would be a good thing so there is no harm in investigating nature. Obviously trying to design an aircraft just to look like a bird is not a good idea like any other dogma.

The nose of the b2 is very beak like and I just doubt that the engineers or designers wouldnt be aware of that. I guess it's more probable that they started designing it and then realized it was starting to look like a beak than the other way around but still.

>>35108749
Your argument is that more aircraft would've been shot down but the Yugoslavs only tried during "the last month", meanwhile data shows that the vast majority of SAM launches did NOT occur in "the last month" or even close to it. So again, if the IADS of the Yugos was so great, why did they fail to down or even damage as many aircraft as the Iraqis did when they had superior equipment, training and terrain?

>>35108774
i never said that more aircraft would have been shot down i said that america would have another vietnam on their hands if they didnt realised that the yugoslavians were able to interecept their communications

there is a difference

>>35108792
If the Yugos were able to intercept and decode their comms and all these other things as you said and NATO was so incompetent that nothing hit - again, why did the Yugo IADS perform so abysmally?

>>35108835
watch the video maybe you will learn a thing of two before you throw another poo

File: f-91.jpg (64KB, 800x664px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x664px

>>35108585
>One structure meant to carry most mass in the middle and have a single aerodynamic surface looking like another meant to carry most mass in the middle and have a singleish surface means one was meant to copy another
Go look up the history of the flying wing and get back to us about it.

>Look at designs of the 60s
Pic related, design from the 50s

File: Qualitive_variation_of_cd_with_mach_number.png (13KB, 450x320px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 450x320px

>>35108736
>It went fast enough that conventional supersonic theory breaks down
True doesnt drag actually decrease at like mach 2.5? Seems like if the heating issue was countered then hypersonic fighters could be very efficient in cruise.

>is so absurdly complicated that you can't just go slapping things on planes because it looks like it'll work

True but in the future 3d printers might get a lot better so rapid prototyping becomes feasible in aviation. Especially with scale models. And Kelly Johnson famously said "if it looks right then it will fly right" or something to that effect.

File: screams externally.png (193KB, 610x389px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 610x389px

>>35108855
>True doesnt drag actually decrease at like mach 2.5?
No. Wave drag peaks at Mach 1 and drops off, but lift to drag ratios steadily drop from Mach 1 onwards.

>Seems like if the heating issue was countered then hypersonic fighters could be very efficient in cruise.
Hypersonic heating isn't something you can solve. Hypersonic aircraft have to be designed first and foremost for withstanding the heat - everything else is secondary. You end up having to use blunt bodies purely to detach shocks because an attached shock at hypersonic speeds will destroy the aircraft (pic related).

And manned hypersonics are useless. Hypersonic vehicles have stupidly short endurances and are so incredibly specialized that they wouldn't be operationally useful.

File: damn_look_at_dem_curves.jpg (57KB, 800x392px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 800x392px

>>35108849
>Go look up the history of the flying wing and get back to us about it.
Common you think the designers of the b-2 really werent aware that the nose of their aircraft looked like a beak? They are very smart individuals and it must have dawned on them at some point if they didnt start out with it as an inspiration entirely.

>>35108849
>Look at designs of the 50s
I have seen that before and that is the kind of trailing edges that I have been HAARPing about (get it cause the hurricanes) but what was the purpose of that design? It looks like if you were able to have more trailing edge like that you could increase fuel capacity without increasing drag as much.

Also what i meant was the x-15 and f-104 look very simple but if you look at the sr-72 concept it looks very organic almost like the waist of a woman or something.

>>35108711
That is a lot of technical jargon I am not familiar with but I will look some of it up when I have time. The reason i was asking about the flanker is because some anon earlier said: >>35093822
>Thus the Sukhoi pilot has to continuously calculate the relative positions, speeds, maneuvers (lots and lots of geometry), in order to maintain a successful radar lock and guide their missile home. The F-15,F-16 pilot simply lets the computer do that for them.

>>35108711
Can I ask you what is the fastest you have gone in your strike eagle? Have you ever gone mach 2.5? And i imagine that because you fly strike eagles that you train low level? What is the fastest you have gone low level? And what is the hypothetical never exceed speed for low level flight in jets like the f-15. I remember reading that f-4 pilots in vietnam would hit the deck when running away from their targets on their way home and they would exceed the never exceed speeds for IAS and sometimes they would come home and see bubbling paint on the leading edges of their aircraft and charring.

>>35086590
>sub 4% pk's
Well memed.

>>35108945
>HAARP
>Hurricanes
This is the kind of person who thinks that the B-2 was designed specifically to look like a hawk.

File: janoy.png (577KB, 436x614px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 436x614px

>>35108945
>Going mach 2.5 in a strike eagle
Lol good luck, maybe in a dive from 50k feet.

>>35108846
I'm asking you.

File: 08b_fm2016_2014_674dayssef14-12246-006_live.jpg (74KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 800x600px

>>35108930
>Hypersonic heating isn't something you can solve.
Look at the tiles on the x-37. They are much more sophisticated than the space shuttle tiles and sme are hexagonal. Why couldnt fighters have something like that so they could go mach 4 or 5. Fighters like the f-35 are already designed to have removable RAM panels so I think making ceramic panels would be feasible and then they would also have the benefit of having a lower IR signature.

>You end up having to use blunt bodies purely to detach shocks because an attached shock at hypersonic speeds will destroy the aircraft

I think you posted that before in another thread and it does illustrate the extremes of that speed. But even designing your aircraft to go like mach 4 as opposed to mach 2 would have benefits in being able to engage things like ballistic missiles and make missiles have more energy when they are released.

With regards to providing thrust, ram jets are not the best solution and there is work being done on pulse detonation engines, which are very different from normal pusle engines, and actually have very very good efficiency because detonation is more efficient that deflageration.

>And manned hypersonics are useless. Hypersonic vehicles have stupidly short endurances and are so incredibly specialized that they wouldn't be operationally useful.
Never say never anon :^) with the recent nuclear scare maybe one day we will have skykangz.

>>35108969
Jesus christ mother fucker its called a goddamn joke. And ofc i will admit that the b-2 probably started out as a theoretical design but there is no way the designers didnt realize how their design was starting to look like a hawk in the design process. Also it's not that crazy to imagine a designer COULD have been inspired by nature and like the other anon said what inspires the designer is somewhat arbitrary and a million different things could have inspired the original idea via inception.

>>35108975
What about in clean config?

>>35109025
>Also it's not that crazy to imagine a designer COULD have been inspired by nature and like the other anon said what inspires the designer is somewhat arbitrary and a million different things could have inspired the original idea via inception.

>Need something with long range
>Need something that can carry a bunch of bombs
>Need it to be hard to notice on radar
A flying wing design fits these criteria very well. I'm pretty sure the engineers behind it were thinking about them instead of "lol make it look like a bird because it nature boyeee rick flairening"

>>35099285
>B1B tier "stealth."
Is 6m2.
Not 0.5m2

>>35108945
Fastest I've gone was a little over 1.1 lol. 2.5 would need to be no CFTs with a -229 jet at 30-40k feet. Low level we generally go 480knots ground speed then 540 IP to target. Can go faster but we don't really train for it much. I've heard of some guys on deployments pushing it up to 650 just for fun but then you risk a bird wrecking you so no reason to do that unless you're trying to outrun a flanker and live.

>>35091902
>calculate a bvr firing solution in their head

Air nous here please elaborate on this

File: maxresdefault.jpg (48KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1280x720px

>>35109088
Niice

>>35109055
Oh my god. Do you really think that the designers had no idea their creation looked like a hawk until someone made a meme of it on the internet and posted in facebook?

Also look at the 787 wing. It may not look exactly like a bird's wing but it flows just like an artist would draw a wing. I know they didnt just follow some meme while designing it but you cant really think that the engineers werent aware of the elegance of their design?

>>35109025
>Look at the tiles on the x-37.
Have you looked at it? The X-37 (and every reentry vehicle) has a blunt nose because it has to keep the bow shock detached.

>pulse detonation engines
Oh it's this retard again.

You really don't seem to understand what you're talking about. You're arguing exactly like a mechfag.

>>35109117
>Oh my god. Do you really think that the designers had no idea their creation looked like a hawk until someone made a meme of it on the internet and posted in facebook?
We're arguing that it doesn't matter because the design work was always focused on the actual objectives not
>lol let's have it look like a birb

>>35109088
Don't you want more speed to push more range into glide bombs?

>>35093907
>MiG-29's reliance on the Soviet's anachronistic ground control systems
Only the earliest modifications.
>Soviet's anachronistic ground control systems
There is no need to be this salty.
>poor engines
That were also piss cheap and easy to maintain and change, unlike burger monstrosities that required maintenance so extensive it was easier to buy a new engine than to try to keep the old one flyable through its promised lifespan.
>undesirable ergonomics
That's just plain bullshit.
>had a tendency to frustrate everyone that worked with them
Tell that to Algerians who are perfectly happy with their Fulcrums.

File: su-27sm.jpg (172KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1920x1080px

>>35093907
>SU-27
>dated avionics
Nigger, please.
>Soviet Union's inability to build computers worth a damn
Lol, call me back when burger F-15s will finally get FBW.

>>35109151
There's a speed limit for most bombs. GBU-12s are .95M, I think the same for GBU-38s. GBU-31s are around 1.3M though, but good luck going that fast while carrying it. If you're trying to get distance out of a bomb than you'll be carrying GBU-39s which can glide for a very long way, but again those are limited to some subsonic speed for delivery.

>>35109168
>unlike burger monstrosities that required maintenance so extensive it was easier to buy a new engine than to try to keep the old one flyable through its promised lifespan.

Except the only engines where that actually happened were Soviet engines. Meanwhile here in reality, everybody uses American/Brit/Frog turbines for almost everything since Russia can't compete and has to ask Ukraine for help with theirs.

Go look up AgentJayZ on youtube if you want to start learning more about engines.


>That's just plain bullshit.
Which is why MiG has updated the cockpit layout : ^ )

File: NRL-0060.jpg (49KB, 765x429px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 765x429px

>>35109135
>Have you looked at it? The X-37 (and every reentry vehicle) has a blunt nose because it has to keep the bow shock detached.
Yes but why not using the same kind of tiles to allow fighters to reach speeds over mach 3? For high supersonic speeds they dont necessarily have to be blunt bodes. The x-15 was not a blunt body. Additionally tiles like that could have RAM incorporated and would reduce heat signature.

>You really don't seem to understand what you're talking about. You're arguing exactly like a mechfag.
Yeah im an amateur but it doesnt take a literal rocket scientist to realize that detonation is more efficient than deflaguration. There are designs being explored that incorporate rotating the pulse wave or engine and then it would even be possible to drive a fan and that could someday be a way to make civilian engines more efficient. Current jet engines just burn the fuel like a flamethrower but in the future it would be beneficial to detonate the fuel/air mixture.

To think that aircraft engines will be exactly the same 20-30 years from now is ignorant. And there is room for innovation and imagination. I realize that I'm not exactly speaking about practicality but talking about practical designs isnt as fun and predicting exotic designs of the future is fun. We're on an anime imageboard btw.

This is a test of a rotating pulse det engine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP6dOa0AcCw

>We're arguing that it doesn't matter because the design work was always focused on the actual objectives not
Kay, but I'm arguing it wouldnt hurt to look at nature for inspiration. Rapid prototyping and using scale models could make building a bunch of different cool looking designs beneficial because one of them might actually work and then working backwards to find out why it works could advance the theoretical models.

>>35109168
>Only the earliest modifications.
I was mostly referring to the doctrine, the early models weren't didn't really help either.

>>35109186
The Soviets had terrible computers, and they even had to buy from the west for a lot of things. Remember the oil pipeline explosion of '82? Also thats a modernized Su-27, they didn't have those fancy LCDs back then.

File: su-35s with kh-31 & r-77.jpg (1MB, 1500x1013px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1013px

>>35100515
>Its been years since I've seen an aircraft carrying them
You haven't been looking too well then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNVEWQ6OXG8

>>35109216
Why would you bring a fighter to mach 3?
What could possibly be worth covering it in heavy tiles?

>Yeah im an amateur
It shows. In spades.

>Current jet engines just burn the fuel like a flamethrower but in the future it would be beneficial to detonate the fuel/air mixture.
"The internet is not a big truck" of turbine engines right here.

>We're on an anime imageboard btw.
We're on a weapons board on a website with something like 11 anime boards out of ~75 total boards. It's like calling a basketball player a midget because you stopped measuring his height at his ankles.

>but I'm arguing it wouldnt hurt to look at nature for inspiration.
It would hurt even less to look at the design goals.

File: DOW_TIDE_(335091)1.png (174KB, 650x327px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 650x327px

>>35109135
>>35109135
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBcflqPNhCY
Another video illustrating rotating pulse detonation engines..

Do you really think all this theoretical design work is really useless and in vain? Someday someone WILL figure out how to harness detonation for aviation.

People said the same things about jet engines when they were first being developed and thought all aircraft MUST be driven by propellers, but look how that turned out? And yes the irony is not lost on me that civillian airliners are returning to propellers basically because of the ultra high bypass turbofans.

There is also this? I havent read through it but it looks interesting:
>http://tide.comoti.ro/about.html

>>35109251
Whats up with them only carrying one per plane?

File: f-22 ir.jpg (4KB, 324x217px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 324x217px

>>35100544
>IR stealth
Call me back when it won't be a meme.

>>35099285
>.001 or less
Designated metal golf ball units.

>>35099401
>Americans have provided evidence of <.001 RCS.
No, they did not.
>>35100186
>Where is your rationale for the claim the PAK-FA is a similar level of stealth as the F22 and F35?
That's what the designer says. They estimate F-22/-35 RCS around 0,3-0,1 m2 and aim to the similar results with T-50.

>Weeb autist and golf ball vatnik in same thread
Board over everybody go home

File: 250px-ASAT_missile_launch.jpg (14KB, 250x331px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x331px

>>35109252
>Why would you bring a fighter to mach 3?
More energy in missiles when theyre launched. Better evasion. I know drones can do a lot but putting a human in the air at high altitude and speeds would have its benefits and allow better situational awareness and engagement times against things like hypersonic cruise missles and ballistic missiles. Before you tell me no AA missile can hit a ballistic missile remember that the f-15 had an anti-sat missile in development and also future aircraft may use lasers.

>What could possibly be worth covering it in heavy tiles?
Dont have to take the same heat load as reentry so could be lighter and also the materials are advancing and could be lighter in the future or use liquid cooling like the tu-144.

>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/03/us/loss-shuttle-heat-shields-protective-tiles-have-been-major-concern-start.html?mcubz=1
The weight of the space shuttle tiles was 22 pounds per cubic foot in the places that had the most heat load and 12 pounds per cubic foot in the cooler areas so for a small fighter with less of a heat load the tiles would be even lighter.

Why not make a hypersonic interceptor aircraft (a-12) to compliment the lighter maneuvering aircraft as well or balancing some heat shielding in a maneuvering fighter so it would be more lethal and better to engage other fast targets? Also a hypersonic UCAV makes some sense in countering ballistic missles or complementing traditional air superiority fighters. I mean how can you call a fighter like the f-22 air superiority if it cant shoot down hyperosonic targets?

Youre acting like the current state of fighters are the end all be all forms of aerial combat. That may be true from a cost perspective for the current super powers but in the future someone could figure out a way to counter 5th gen fighters and that may benefit them.

>"The internet is not a big truck" of turbine engines right here.
wut?

>It shows. In spades.
Sorry your highness please forgib

>>35109216
>>35109263
Jesus fuck you nigger you're hitting all the mechfag talking points.

Technology isn't just some kind of sliding scale where you throw research at problems and make the numbers bigger indefinitely. There's very real physical laws that limit things, and you're showing that you have absolutely no understanding of the science behind it.

>>35109270
I see two.

>>35109376
>Before you tell me no AA missile can hit a ballistic missile
They can. It's been demonstrated multiple times, and we've had ABMs in development since ICBMS started being a thing. The difference is that missiles can afford all the design sacrifices necessary to reach hypersonic speeds.

And you've got a fundamental misunderstanding of supersonic - let alone hypersonic - maneuvering. The SR-71's turn radius was measured in hundreds of miles. Hypersonic maneuvers involve changing your trajectory by a couple of degrees.

Let me guess, you're all hyped up about China's hypersonic maneuvering missiles too, right?

>>35109376
>Evading a missile
You're going to have about equal success at mach 3 compared to mach 2.

>Future aircraft may use lasers
I won't hold my breath.

>Dont have to take the same heat load as reentry so could be lighter and also the materials are advancing and could be lighter in the future or use liquid cooling like the tu-144
Doesn't answer the original question.

What role would a hypersonic interceptor fill? Why would you use a hypersonic RPA against ballistic missiles? Why do you thing you need to engage hypersonic targets with a fighter for it to be an air superiority fighter?

Serious question, how old are you?

>>35109385
My mistake, I thought the first one had the right pylon empty but I couldn't really see it due to the exhaust. The plane at 1min tripped me up, thought they were all set up like that.

File: yourfile.jpg (27KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x480px

>>35109271
You do realize liquid cooling is a thing and the tu-144 used it to cool the fuselage? And youre acting like northrup grumman didnt say publicly they are looking at ways to decrease the heat on board their sixth gen stealth aircraft with regards to lasers specifically but the concept might be able to be applied to exterior heating as well.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/northrop-beating-heat-leads-sixth-generation-fighte-420006/
>Venting the heat offboard only raises the aircraft’s visibility to heat-sealing sensors. Another option is to develop a thermal accumulator, which is a path the Air Force Research Laboratory is pursuing under the INVENT program. An electrical accumulator stores the energy onboard in the same way as a hydraulic accumulator, releasing the latent energy as necessary to generate a surge of power.

>It would hurt even less to look at the design goals.
Aww im sorry sweetie. People being inspired triggers you so much. You know its possible to draw inspiration and work towards design goals as well? And like i said, rapid prototyping might allow someone like me to just fly a bunch of models that look cool and then test which ones work best and then figure out why they work. Kind of like working backwards but it would be meant to COMPLIMENT design goal oriented work and give design teams a creative edge. There is an argument to be made that aviation could benefit from methods intended to speed up the design process as well or make them less expensive. Computers achieve this to some extent but I think some autist with a 3D printer might be able to help as well :^ )


>Technology isn't just some kind of sliding scale where you throw research at problems and make the numbers bigger indefinitely. There's very real physical laws that limit things, and you're showing that you have absolutely no understanding of the science behind it.
And we are reaching the peak output for deflaguration, detonation would be the next logical step.

>>35109202
>Except the only engines where that actually happened were Soviet engines
Whatever floats your boat.
>Russia can't compete and has to ask Ukraine for help with theirs
Well memed, too bad in real life every single bit of technology Ukraine has nowadays is a reminiscent of the Soviet Union and the only reason Russia was exporting anything from them is because the Soviet production for these particular things was stationed there. Meanwhile in real life, even Brazil drops from cooperation with Ukraine, while Russia switches to internal production in just a couple of years. Try harder.
>>35109231
>I was mostly referring to the doctrine
Fulcrum was the product of a doctrine in the process of changing and it got better as it changed.
>The Soviets had terrible computers
Name an American digital computer that could land bombs into a 1x1 km2 area from 21 km altitude at Mach 2+ and then we'll talk.
>they didn't have those fancy LCDs back then
Who did? Su-27 electronics were perfectly adequate for the time they were introduced. Naturally, in the 90s and most of the 00s they lagged behind. Once again, call me back when American F-15s will get FBW.

File: f-22 ir.png (55KB, 633x350px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 633x350px

>>35109464
Vid is shit quality anyway. I thought I had RT one capturing Su-35S with two pairs of R-77 saved, but I can't find it anywhere, might be mistaking it for something else.
>>35109477
>looking at ways to
So like I said, call me back when there's an actual functioning IR stealth.

>>35109477
>You do realize liquid cooling is a thing and the tu-144 used it to cool the fuselage
There's a big difference between using fuel as a heat sink so the plane doesn't fall apart and cooling the aircraft to the point that it's harder to see on the IR spectrum. The SR-71 used heat to cool the aircraft as well. It didn't stop it from getting hot enough to cause the skin to expand.

Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. Stop.

>>35109494
>Name an American digital computer that could land bombs into a 1x1 km2 area from 21 km altitude at Mach 2+ and then we'll talk.

Their capability to build good computers was pathetic, they had to find foreign models to buy for their VITAL industries because the domestic designs were that terrible. I'm not familiar with the specific models of avionics, but the general trend in the development of computers and electronics was far in favor of the west.

File: speed-is-the-new-stealth.jpg (78KB, 600x305px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x305px

>>35109434
> The difference is that missiles can afford all the design sacrifices necessary to reach hypersonic speeds.

Yeah but it would be even better to have a literal sky kang able to respond to hypersonic threats. I know drones and missiles are cheaper but having a MAN going mach 6 at flight level 1500. Hypersonic interception is something where seconds count and having a dude up there might make a crucial difference.

>The SR-71's turn radius was measured in hundreds of miles
So have a bunch of sky kangz doing zig zags up in the air over north korea!

>you're all hyped up about China's hypersonic maneuvering missiles too
Why not? The falcon hypersonic glider was cool to? But powered air-breathing maneuvering flight at hypersonic speeds has obvious advantages.

>You're going to have about equal success at mach 3 compared to mach 2.
Untrue. If you can turn around and outrun the missile speed is an advantage.

>Doesn't answer the original question.
If someone develops a fighter that can go faster then it has an advantage and yes everything is a compromise but to think that mach 2 is the fastest a jet fighter should ever go is very near sighted. A mach 4+ fighter could have a big advantage in air to air engagements for multiple reasons: the missile it shoots would have more energy and it would have more of a margin to escape any incoming missiles. If the heat shield or active cooling was light enough then why not consider it?


>What role would a hypersonic interceptor fill
Going pew pew at nuclear missiles and carrier destoryers.

>Why do you thing you need to engage hypersonic targets with a fighter for it to be an air superiority fighter?
Because there are things in the sky that are even more superior than the air superiority fighter if it cant shoot them down. It's a limited superiority fighter.

>Serious question, how old are you?
Im 30 and I wont let my age get in the way of my imagination or creativity!! Sorry you think your head must stay in the box.

File: 1335010664257.jpg (110KB, 720x951px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 720x951px

>>35109550
>Their capability to build good computers was pathetic
>I'm not familiar with the specific models of avionics
Okay, thanks for the contribution.

File: 47XH4.jpg (386KB, 1800x1205px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 1800x1205px

>>35109533
>Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. Stop.
With all do respect your ego is blinding your creativity. I said that active cooling could be used to help the figher not break apart at hypersonic speeds BUT then at subsonic cruise it could be used to hide the aircraft!

>>35109494
>Whatever floats your boat.
I'll stick with the truth then.

>Name an American digital computer that could land bombs into a 1x1 km2 area from 21 km altitude at Mach 2+ and then we'll talk.
Paveway 1.
>Bragging about a 500m CEP
Sad!

>>35109612
>Paveway 1
>21 km altitude at Mach 2+
Kek.

File: tablemyb.png (2KB, 160x124px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 160x124px

>>35109550
>Their capability to build good computers was pathetic
They did come up with some interesting concepts though like analogue computers and ternary computers that used three-valued-logic. They were unsophisticated in many regards but at the same time we could look at some of their concepts for novel solutions to problems today.

>>35109570
>If you can turn around and outrun the missile
You can't. Missiles are always going to be faster and rated for significantly higher stresses than a manned aircraft ever will.

Again. Do some goddamn research before you start spouting bullshit and then insisting that you know better than everyone else.

>>35109591
They didn't even have faith in what they made, and commercial grade electronics in the west were far superior than what were available in the Soviet Union. If you tell me that the state of computing in any way favored the Soviets and that they some how had access to better computers, I'm just going to have to assume you're joking.

>>35109570
>Engineers with years of air combat and exercise data
Most air combat is in the transonic range and done with missiles. A modern multirole will almost certainly never have to exceed mach 1.2.

>Internet weeaboo with drawings, CGI, and pictures of birds
WE NEED MANNED FIGHTERS THAT DO MACH SIX SO WE CAN SHOOT DOWN NUKES AND BECAUSE LARGE NUMBERS ARE COOL.

>If someone develops a fighter that can go faster then it has an advantage
Speed isn't the only quality that matters in a fighter.

>the missile it shoots would have more energy
Put a larger booster on the missile instead of sacrificing your airframe for silly speeds

> it would have more of a margin to escape any incoming missiles
That's what countermeasures are for, although that is a valid point

>If the heat shield or active cooling was light enough then why not consider it?
If my dick was 15 feet long, I could consider pissing out my window from bed. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

>Going pew pew at nuclear missiles and carrier destoryers.
Use missiles.

>Because there are things in the sky that are even more superior than the air superiority fighter if it cant shoot them down. It's a limited superiority fighter.
Oh shit you can't bring down meteors with a F-22 it's shit.

>Im 30 and I wont let my age get in the way of my imagination or creativity!! Sorry you think your head must stay in the box.
I'm not sorry that I consider reality when I post.

>>35109658
cyka blyat Russian vacuum tubes folded one trillion times > American transistors

File: 1335010664256.jpg (225KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1000x1000px

>>35109658
>commercial grade electronics
So you are already desperate enough to derail this by moving goalposts this far away? Okay, thanks for the contribution.

>>35109649
Thats true, but overall their inability to produce better computers ensured that they could never catch up to western economies, though that may never have been a realistic goal.

>>35109683
>American transistors
During the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project the processing of Soyuz orbit parameters was accomplished by a BESM-6 based system in 1 minute. The same computation for the Apollo was carried out by the American side in 30 minutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BESM#BESM-6

File: 11-fighter-aircraft-avionics-part-iv-20-638.jpg (42KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 638x479px

>>35109652
>You can't. Missiles are always going to be faster and rated for significantly higher stresses
True but even today fighters have a chance to outrun incoming missles. When an enemy launches a missle at you there is a certain amount of time where there is a chance to turn around and try to outrun the missile. The faster the plane can go and more acceleration it has determines how much of a margin it has.

>Again. Do some goddamn research before you start spouting bullshit and then insisting that you know better than everyone else.
I dont think i know better than everyone else! And i appreciate the experts in these threads and I feel bad for annoying you with my wacky ideas but common, there has to be ways to innovate! There might not be any opponents worth of a hypothetical hypersonic fighter but decades from now that might not be the case and hypersonic threats are real and often the most deadly with nuclear payloads so there IS a use case to argue for putting someone up there going really fast in an effort to get the quickest response and best situational awareness. Also there might be a way to design a spaceplane at that point and that would have major impacts on our economy and space exploration.

>>35109697
One thing breads another, idiot. Not the guy you are responding to.

File: 11k25 energia with 17f19dm polyus (6).jpg (901KB, 1455x2204px) Image search: [Google]

901KB, 1455x2204px

>>35109769
>One thing breads another
Not in a socialist country that in itself was a one huge military industrial complex, moron.

>>35109792
Which wasnt capable of putting out comparable stuff to the West. Thats the problem with guys, you are so delusional it aint funny anymore.

>>35109792
Is this the reason why Russia is the pinacle of computer engineering? Oh i forgot, Russia barely made a 2000s equivalent computer by now. All they had at best were some single glimpses, that get dragged around by people like you, if they actually mean a thing.

>>35109792
That exploded due to a computer error.

>>35109683
>A modern multirole will almost certainly never have to exceed mach 1.2.

It still would be beneficial to go fast. Bleeding energy off missiles is a thing and I already addressed that the no kill zone would be smaller if you can go faster and accelerate quicker.

Not every fighter should be a multirole especially when the opponents get more sophisticated than the current opponents with KFIRS and Thunders.

>WE NEED MANNED FIGHTERS THAT DO MACH SIX SO WE CAN SHOOT DOWN NUKES AND BECAUSE LARGE NUMBERS ARE COOL.
Sorry you would rather have the f-35 rather than something that could protect our friends and families from the actual threat of a rogue nuke launch. I know diplomacy is the best option but even Oppenheimer admitted that mistakes could be made.

>Speed isn't the only quality that matters in a fighter.
Arguably it's the most important property when it comes to maneuvering. Boom and Zoom has been the prevailing tactic even during world warr II against zeros which were very maneuverable. Outrunning a missle is the best chance a fighter has because the warhead can compensate for turning and the missile can usually turn better than a fighter. I agree though that payload might be equally as important especially as countermeasures improve.

>Put a larger booster on the missile instead of sacrificing your airframe for silly speeds
That is a fair point ofc.

>That's what countermeasures are for, although that is a valid point
Yeah I'm also the guy arguing in the metal storm thread that fighters should have some advanced countermeasures to shoot down incoming threats.

>If my dick was 15 feet long, I could consider pissing out my window from bed. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Might not be as heavy as you think and we wont know unless someone tries it and goes public. Unfortunately I dont think those kind of projects are very public. In a perfect world air forces would just try to build prototypes to show off against eachother.

>>35109792
>>One thing breads another
>Not in a socialist country that in itself was a one huge military industrial complex, moron.
So, you agree that it gave the west another advantage being able to rely on more?

>>35109832
does russia even make computer parts or do they just buy them from china like everyone else?

File: 1345364371456.png (27KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 200x200px

>>35109812
>Derails the discussion and moves goalposts
>Expects me to take the bait
Go be fat somewhere else.
>>35109832
>What the fuck is the collapse of the Soviet Union?
How many countries are actually producing their own CPUs? How many of them were shattered into 15 pieces after a devastating economic crisis that didn't end till pretty much about 10 years ago? Bitch, please.

>>35109845
>That exploded
No, it did not. And it was not a computer error, but a human error that was caused by the project being hasted from the top.

>>35109870
http://rostec.ru/en/news/4516582

>>35109877
>Literally thinks soviets had an edge on computer technology
I think one must be russian to be so retarded to believe it. Also why would a nation decide to build their own CPU that is not more adanced then 10 year old commerical CPUs, which can be easy be licensed and produced. The only real worth it has is for propaganda reasons.

>>35109856
>It still would be beneficial to go fast. Bleeding energy off missiles is a thing and I already addressed that the no kill zone would be smaller if you can go faster and accelerate quicker.
F-15E guy here again, super high speed is great for the first volley you shoot be after that, you're going subsonic and descending rapidly ASAP. You're turn radius gets exponentially larger the faster you go for a given level of G, so if you're trying to notch or exit at x miles, that turn circle even at 9Gs is going to bring you way closer to the enemy missile than if you were slower. You don't really "bleed" airspeed off the missiles, you just exit and they run out of energy without doing any crazy maneuvers, and you do so without going max speed of the jet because if you have to pitch hot again, you need to have that fast turn rate and small turn radius at 9 Gs rather than the turn performance of a C-17 to get back in the fight.

So basically, other anon was right, almost everything is done in the transonic region.

File: 1276929485046771527.jpg (16KB, 320x219px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 320x219px

>>35109384
>Technology isn't just some kind of sliding scale where you throw research at problems and make the numbers bigger indefinitely
Tell that to this guy.. :^)

>>35109877
>>Derails the discussion and moves goalposts
Are you or are you not saying that soviet computers were lacking compared to their western counterparts? A few single exceptions doesnt change a fucking thing.

>>35109889
The Polyus spacecraft was launched 15 May 1987 from Baikonur Cosmodrome Site 250 as part of the first flight of the Energia system,[2] but failed to reach orbit.

It was destroyed in the atmosphere.

>>35109916
>Literally puts words into my mouth
One has to be a desperate shitposter trying to derail the conversation out of his sheer bitterness to do this. Thanks for the contribution.

>>35109945
We accept your obvious defeat, mister soviet tech fan.

>>35109937
The catastrophic malfunction that led to Skif entering the atmosphere in the same area as Energia's second stage was successfully investigated. It was found that 568 seconds after launch, the timing control device gave the logical block a command to discard the side modules' covers and laser exhaust covers. Unknowingly, the same command was earlier used to open the solar panels and disengage the maneuvering thrusters.

>>35109935
Soviet military computers were perfectly on par with western counterparts for the most part of the Cold War.
>>35109937
Yeah, it didn't explode and I just explained you what caused its deorbiting.

File: 1497631105002.png (3MB, 1480x1894px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1480x1894px

>>35109970
>Soviet military computers were perfectly on par with western counterparts for the most part of the Cold War.
No.

>>35109962
I accept your gift of salt, mr. desperate goalposts moving shitposter.

>>35109981
Name an American digital computer that could land bombs into a 1x1 km2 area from 21 km altitude at Mach 2+ and then we'll talk.

>>35109923
>you're going subsonic and descending rapidly ASAP.

Whats the reason for descending? Wouldnt you want to have as much energy as possible? Or is that just to turn tighter?

>You don't really "bleed" airspeed off the missiles
Hmm. So wouldnt the correct like of action be to slow down, then turn 180, then speed up again, and if the missile starts getting close slow down in case you need to turn?

I guess there is no chance of this working at shorter ranges but like at AMRAAM distances isnt that a viable tactic when you have time to decelerate and then accelerate again? I suppose the performance of fighters might not be enough to worry about accelerating again?

>>35109970
>Soviet military computers were perfectly on par with western counterparts for the most part of the Cold War.
That is what a brain on krokodil looks like.

>>35109997
Dont start crying, you shitpost obvious bullshit, dont expect a nice treatment, russboo. On the other hand your kind do love to roll around in the victim role like a pig in the dirt.

File: 1502141713704.jpg (49KB, 575x548px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 575x548px

>>35110006
Already answered
> A few single exceptions doesnt change a fucking thing.
If you said, they were on par in a few cases, in some even surpassed them for specific tasks, no one would have said a thing.

>>35110019
>That is what a brain on krokodil looks like.
Says a trailer dweller on moonshine, lol.
>Dont start crying
Why would I start crying over your salt, goalposts moving shitposter?
>>35110040
>Already answered
So did I.
>A few single exceptions doesnt change a fucking thing
>It... It doesn't count!
Bitch, please. You're getting way too pathetic.

>>35110085
>>A few single exceptions doesnt change a fucking thing
>>It... It doesn't count!
>Bitch, please. You're getting way too pathetic.
Yes, it doesnt count, this is how logic works. Or you are saying when 3 computers were on par and 97 werent, you would still say they were generally on par? Talking about pathetic.

>Why would I start crying
Your obivious butthurt is showing, in your insults and your obvious inability to grasp even simple concepts. Go be a vatnik somewhere else.

>>35110040
>If you said, they were on par in a few cases, in some even surpassed them for specific tasks, no one would have said a thing.
Lol, let's just backtrack a bit. Here's a faggot saying >>35093907 "Soviet Union's inability to build computers worth a damn", and here's a faggot saying >>35109231 "The Soviets had terrible computers", and here's a faggot saying >>35109550 "Their capability to build good computers was pathetic" admitting that he is "not familiar with the specific models of avionics". And what did I say? I said >>35109186 "call me back when burger F-15s will finally get FBW" and >>35109494 "Su-27 electronics were perfectly adequate for the time they were introduced. Naturally, in the 90s and most of the 00s they lagged behind". Bitch, please, keep your reading comprehension in check.

>>35109970
>it didn't explode

What do you think happened when it re-entered? Did not mean to mislead.

>Soviet military computers were perfectly on par with western counterparts for the most part of the Cold War.

This is actually pretty correct. The Soviet Union was able to compete with the west until around the mid to late 70's, as a result of the microprocessing revolution that kicked off in the early 70's. The Soviet's did not see the benefits of this until much later, and by that point their economy was stagnating and they probably couldn't even afford to get the production capacity they wanted or for that matter needed. They pushed the older systems as far as they could, and as a few people have posted above they got some good use out of them. However, as another previously stated they also imported foreign computers because they weren't satisfied with their own.

>>35110116
>Yes, it doesnt count
Okay, thanks for the contribution.
>>35110175
>What do you think happened when it re-entered?
Things usually burn, not explode. My point is there was no explosion caused by a computer error, there was deorbiting caused by human error.
>The Soviet's did not see the benefits of this until much later, and by that point their economy was stagnating and they probably couldn't even afford to get the production capacity they wanted or for that matter needed
Holy shit, finally the voice of reason.

>>35110016
You descend and slow down so you aren't flying closer to the missile and you bring it into thicker air. When you exit you start accelerating and going downhill to get the missiles into the thicker air. Essentially everything comes down to being at a good corner speed because it makes for the best geometry and being in a good regime for acceleration.

>>35110142
>Here's a faggot saying >>35093907 "Soviet Union's inability to build computers worth a damn"
Nicely ripped out of context and twisted.
>faggot saying >>35109231 "The Soviets had terrible computers"
Is this here wrong or not?
>they even had to buy from the west for a lot of things
Did the West bought soviet computer tech? No? What is the direct conclusion.
...
Piss off with your twisting and ignoring stuff, all you are doing is proving once again that russians and their friends are nothing more than a bunch of cunts, who will nitpick and change everthing the other said, while crying over not being understood correctly even over the most basic thing.

>>35110212
>>Yes, it doesnt count
>Okay, thanks for the contribution.
Okay, thanks for displaying your inabilty to understand and process simple logic, the second it aint in your flavour anymore, surely shows your true character. Again:
>Or you are saying when 3 computers were on par and 97 werent, you would still say they were generally on par?

>>35110254
>ripped out of context
The context was that Su-27 had poor avionics, which is bullshit.
>Is this here wrong or not?
It is wrong.
>Did the West bought soviet computer tech?
No, the west tried to steal it on every occasion. Even the antique 50s crap Iraqis had for radar antennas, not to mention that time burgers stole some sonar from some Polish boat.
>What is the direct conclusion.
That it was well worth trying to obtain.
>... Piss off
Yeah, go do exactly that, jingoistic clown.

>>35110237
Ok. Thanks for the information.

>>35110319
>Stealing things for intelligence is an admission that they're better
Brits were the ones who cozied on up to your sonar and took it btw.

>>35110384
Stealing things for intelligence is an admission that they're well worth trying to obtain.
>Brits were the ones who cozied on up to your sonar and took it btw.
Brits are a part of the west though.

>>35110406
Have you ever considered the possibility that they want to get hands on their enemy's equipment to know what it is capable of and how to optimize tactics against it? Maybe if US was making reverse engineered Su-27 clones like the Russians did with the B-29 that would be one thing, but it's just not.

>>35110442
Have you ever considered the possibility that if they want to get hands on their enemy's equipment then this equipment is well worth trying to obtain?
>Maybe if US was making reverse engineered Su-27 clones
Maybe when American F-15s will finally get FBW.

>>35110319
>The context was that Su-27 had poor avionics, which is bullshit.
So what is it now, russians cant build computers or the avionics of the Su-27 was bad?
>It is wrong.
Get fucked, it is well known that the soviets had bought computer parts in the West because they could not build similar stuff. Stop with the obvious lyling.
>>Did the West bought soviet computer tech?
>No,
Because they were not intersted in using it, but interested how it works and which threats lead through this.
>Even the antique 50s crap Iraqis had for radar antennas, not to mention that time burgers stole some sonar from some Polish boat.
Toot, toot! Radar antennas and sonar are computers now. Also doesnt refute the point from before.
>That it was well worth trying to obtain.
You sound so desperate by now, i could not bring myself not to chuckle. Soviet tech was lacking behind and there is no other reason in buying it for hard forgein currency on a high price.
>Yeah, go do exactly that, jingoistic clown.
You know what be nice? If you would step out of the standard garbage we can hear from people like you, but it is only endless repetition. Cant believe how you can dig your own grave so furiously.

>>35110442
Oh, stop it. The vatnik mind is immune to even simple logic, when it is not in their flavour. Now watch how he is going to pump out 20 more posts, while getting no backup from others, but getting attacked for the stupid thing he says and not even start wondering what he might do wrong.

>>35110479
>Maybe when American F-15s will finally get FBW.
Implying fbw is better or necessary. 737 is direct control and has a better safety record and has manual reversion which is better. A combination is optimal but not necessary.

Sugoi has always had some form of damper on the controls to help with stability and so it benefits. But f-15 would just be a waste of money probably just for a small increase.

Call me when the flapjack isnt a complete heap of shit.

>>35110479
F-15s have a combined hydro-mechanical and CAS (fly by wire) flight control system. It flies fine, as I can attest to since I fly the fucking thing. So you're retarded.

Any enemy equipment is worth obtaining so you can learn more about how to cater your tactics against it. Doesn't mean it's better, but honestly nobody knows just how good it is until you get your hands on it. Like the classic case of US thinking the MiG-25 was an air superiority fighter until a USSR pilot defected and we got our hands on it and found out it is just a fast interceptor and not nearly as scary as we thought.

Hasn't one of the export variants had a full FBW system for years?

And yet another thread got vatniked.
>inb4 americans are just as bad, everyone is doing it, vatniks did nothing wrong,...

>>35110561
>russians cant build computers or the avionics of the Su-27 was bad?
Neither.
>it is well known
To shitposting faggots. Soviet military computers were perfectly on par with western counterparts for the most part of the Cold War. By the time the SU was in crisis it began to lag behind.
>Because they were not intersted in using it
More like because they realised Soviets are not retarded enough to sell it to the west and stealing is the only option.
>Also doesnt refute the point from before.
Yes it does.
>You sound so desperate by now
You do.
>You know what be nice?
Yeah, if you moved from a trailer, found a job and god some money for proper education. But we both realise you will just proceed shitposting.
>>35110571
Sure thing lad, just call me back when it finally gets FBW.
>the classic case of US thinking the MiG-25 was an air superiority fighter
You mean the classic case of the US intelligence fucking up? Yeah, it's hilarious.
>fast interceptor
>not nearly as scary as we thought
I can see how not scary it was with XB-70 getting cancelled alongside with B-58, XF-108 and whatnot.
>>35110587
Not sure about "for years", but Saudis got some with the actual FBW lately.Which is all the more Ironic, since apparently F-15 is such a crumbling shit it ain't even worth modifying, just like Russian MiG-29s.

>>35112189
>Soviet military computers were perfectly on par with western counterparts for the most part of the Cold War.
Oy vey

>since apparently F-15 is such a crumbling shit it ain't even worth modifying
Bit of a flawed understanding of how military aviation functions as an industry?

>>35112189
lol, just told you how we have FBW as a system along with hydro-mechanical yet you still say we don't. Newer export eagles are exclusively FBW but the ones we have in the US are a dual system for redundancy.

XB-70 and all those were cancelled well before MiG-25 was a thing and all those programs were cancelled for different reasons. I'm starting to think you're a troll poster

>>35112256
You have it as a system on F-16s, not F-15s.
>all those programs were cancelled for different reasons
They were cancelled because high altitude supersonic penetration was not a thing anymore with the introduction of top notch SAMs and MiG-25, which forced frontline and strategic bombers along with their escorts to hit the treetop level, and neither of the ones I mentioned could fulfil this role even semi-effectively.
>I'm starting to think you're a troll poster
I never even questioned I'm talking to a circlejerk of jingoistic shitposting trolls ever since that one cunt moved goalposts from military to commercial electronics while simultaneously admitting he has no clue about specific avionics.

>>35112189
I bet it is real in your head, sadly you are alone with that.

>>35110561
>Now watch how he is going to pump out 20 more posts, while getting no backup from others, but getting attacked for the stupid thing he says and not even start wondering what he might do wrong.
This.
You can bet he actually thinks he has a point or is doing Russia a flavour with his posts, no wonder that the country is in such shit state with that combination of arrogance and delusion. You know what? I am going to throw in my own predictions as well, first he will tell me i am wrong and i have to prove that what i said is right, when at the same time he doesnt even accepts the most logical and basic things, then he will claim it doesnt matter how no one is agreeing with him. It is always the same horse shit with em.

>>35112378
teehee u troll me

>>35112405
>A forum of for brainwashed burger trailer dwellers to chant USA in an eternal jingoistic circlejerk
>Implying I expect to find reasonable people here
I mean there are rare gems but for the most part you are just a mindless herd shitposter cattle who will move goalposts the very moment something threatens your retrograde mindset.

File: 57-2.jpg (122KB, 1166x811px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1166x811px

>>35112378
>You have it as a system on F-16s, not F-15s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15E_Strike_Eagle
>The F-15SA have a modern fly-by-wire flight control system in place of the hybrid electronic/mechanical system

>>35112378
Not everything is like how it is on the discovery channel and RT.

>>35112448
>Everyone is wrong but me
>If i repeat it just enough i can even fool myself
Kek.
Stop being such a laughable idiot and go fix your country.

>>35112456
>You have it
>F-15SA
Are you posting from Saudi Arabia? If so, when will your government stop finding terrorism.
...now that I think of it, I could ask you the same question if you are from the US too.
>>35112509
>Everyone is wrong but me
Good that you are admitting this is your mindset, but it was already clear from how far you moved the goalposts.

>>35095812
what a load of fucking shit.

>>35112545
>Good that you are admitting this is your mindset, but it was already clear from how far you moved the goalposts.
I am suprised you got enough brain cells to breath. Enjoy being the fool of the thread once again showing how people like you are just not worth talking to.

>>35112627
I on the other hand am not surprised with your resentment at all.

>>35112545
>are you posting from Saudi Arabia? If so, when will your government stop finding terrorism.
OK you are implying that it would be beneficial for the united states to upgrade their f-15s to fbw? Why would they do that when they have faced budget cuts and want to save money for f-35s? You do know that there are russian jets like the su-27 that are flying with their original avionics? Not saying they didnt upgrade any of them (idk) but I think some are still the original.

The point is that boeing developed FBW but even if they didnt that is a moot point. Why would it matter whether the f-15 has fbw or not? The US has more advanced fighters but the f-15 is still pretty good and they can continue using it and saving money by not building newer planes.

>>35112678
Sorry, but there are simply no suprises with your type. Dont act like you had any impact, you are just a bit more static in the vatnik stream of stupidity. Already forgotten tomorrow since there was nothing differnt, only the sour feeling of you totaly failing in communicating what you ment once again.

File: tu_128_over_100_feet_long.jpg (45KB, 600x379px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x379px

What determines the optimum size for a "fighter?"

Is it ground handling mostly? Cost? Surely materials sciences has advanced sufficiently to allow something bigger to turn 9gs so why not make a fighter yuuuge?

>>35113360
Mission requirements.

You size any aircraft based off of the requirements you're given and realistic estimates based on historical data and any emerging technologies. From there, you get ranges for two useful parameters - thrust/weight and wing loading. Thrust/weight ratio can be combined with operational requirements (like payload) to give you an estimate for the weight of the aircraft and help you select an engine. Once you've got your weight and thrust determined, you can then start designing the wings. Other dimensions tend to be operational limitations - what size hangars you want to be fitting into and whatnot.

File: ox8 (1).jpg (66KB, 478x404px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 478x404px

>>35113467
That made sense but I cant figure out whether it's better to have a bunch of smaller lighter aircraft or fewer heavier more capable aircraft? Below I have listed two aircraft, the B-1 and the F-111 which seem superficially "similar" but of different size and weight classes. From the data below it seems that the F-111 is less effecient for carrying a given payload because it has about half the range (with full payload) but can certainly withstand more g-forces. So it seems like bigger aircraft are always more efficient and able to carry more fuel and payload but probably require more maintenance. We see this echoed in the civilian world where larger jets always have the lowest cost per seat mile.

So my question is why didn't they make the f-22 bigger? It seems like aircraft can at least be as big as the flanker and still pull 9gs so why is the raptor the size it is? And I assume that by now even larger aircraft should be able to pull 9gs or at least 7 so why have militarys not thought of this? Obviously China has taken notice and made the J-20 large but I still think that an airforce would benefit from having yuuge interceptors.

Furthermore what if aircraft fuselages could be made to telescope so that they could decrease space in tight areas like aircraft carrier decks. Imagine if the f-18 could fold its wings better and shrink the fueselage with a telescoping mechanism. Aircraft carriers could possibly double or triple the amount of aircraft they carry?

Also the telescoping mechanism could be used in place of swing wings..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRUOEprSu3o

B-1B:
Payload
>150k lbs of payload
>150k lbs of fuel
Range:
>5000mi
Weight:
>200k lbs empty
>500k lbs full

F-111:
Payload
>30k lbs of payload and has a
>22k lbs of fuel
Range:
>3000mi ferry with droptanks only
Weight:
>50k lbs empty
>500k lbs full

File: RK-1.jpg (90KB, 640x401px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 640x401px

>>35113936
Well the B-1 and F-111 are different classes of aircraft, although they may have overlap in roles. The B-1 is a classic strategic bomber - it needs to carry a large number of strategic weapons over intercontinental ranges. Meanwhile, the F-111 is an interdictor, with a focus on long range precision strikes (compared to CAS).

The reasoning behind keeping weight down is a combination of cost and practicality. As a general rule, you want to keep weight as low as possible - less weight means less thrust needed, shorter takeoff rolls, and lower moments of inertia that make maneuvering easier. Cost is a huge factor here. With your example, the F-111's flyaway cost (adjusted for inflation) is a little more than an eighth the flyaway cost of a B-1B. You see the same with the High/Low mix the USAF uses. The High component is designed to counter the absolute best air opposition that could be reasonably expected, and thus ends up larger - mostly for considerations like endurance. However, that leads to prohibitively expensive designs, so the Low component is designed more for the average - you drop complicated intake designs by keeping top speeds low, drop weights by reducing range requirements, and reduce structural concerns by calling for a smaller payload.

>Telescoping wings
Oh boy, it looks like India's finally caught up with 1920s Russia.

More seriously, telescoping surfaces end up taking up too much internal space and aren't worth the niche benefits.

>>35099121
F-15 Has a data link. F-15 also has TEWS/ DEWS depending on variant. I do not know the Flanker's electronic warfare capability.

>>35109925
my nigga.

>>35086363

WVR the MiG-29 would win every time. The thing was, it almost never got WVR due to superior BVR-missiles and radars on Nato aircraft.

File: avnIKET.png (193KB, 623x469px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 623x469px

>>35092065
The Polish Defense Ministry published a report explaining why they replaced their MiG-29s with F-16s after the breakup, citing drastically lower maintenance, in addition to easier logistics mainly owing to Poland lacking any domestic jet engine production or maintenance infrastructure.