plane thread

File: F-15SMTD.jpg (231KB, 900x614px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 900x614px

>>15797117

File: image.jpg (29KB, 513x293px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 513x293px

>>15797117
>planes
>tanks

What about tank-planes?

File: hqdefault.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>15797245
fuck off pose

>>15797117
I know it's not really that advanced, but the Pak-fa looks the most /futuristic/ out of the new fighters. like something out of Metal Gear.

>yoji shinkawa will never design your countries military hardware

File: PAK FA is Too Cute.png (1MB, 1340x1904px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1340x1904px

>>15797783
>Pak-fa looks the most /futuristic/

File: 1502821112480.jpg (323KB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 2100x1500px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-4XsDQYDi4

File: F-18 Doesn't Like Your Canards.png (907KB, 705x1920px) Image search: [Google]

907KB, 705x1920px

>>15797237

File: Falcons SA.jpg (28KB, 768x513px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 768x513px

You know all these anti-aircraft machines can't hit any of these planes except the biplane and >>15798734 are anti-tank guided missiles. Face it ground pounders you're prey for the war birds.

File: 1044734996.jpg (1MB, 3055x2046px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3055x2046px

>>15798772
Only 3 of those vehicles were anti-aircraft.

>>15798772
Dude, I'm just posting vehicles that resemble mechas. No need to get all pissy.

>>15798772
>he thinks its a vs thread
Grow up.

File: Minikoma.jpg (48KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 640x427px

>real life
ok

File: Hornet.webm (652KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 1280x720px

>>15798822
>>15798804
>posting anti-aircraft in a plane thread

Ground pounders want to fight

>>15798855
>tanks as well, real life thread

File: jato-ac130.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

/m/ore rockets on planes!

File: 2ulkjvmIb1skaxu8.gif (412KB, 293x222px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 293x222px

>>15798855
>planefag get triggered when see SPAAG

kek, you can't make this up.

File: B2 banking.webm (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>15799386
SPAAG's are only a threat if you're too poor for stealth aircraft.

File: 69i0dz.jpg (29KB, 570x364px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 570x364px

>>15799397

File: f_117_model_in__flow_visualization_facility_by_fighterman35-dbcrlhy.jpg (117KB, 1024x820px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1024x820px

>>15799399
>1 combat loss in the total service life, with thousands of combat sorties over some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world

>>15799402

>only

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-21 at 11.45.20 AM.png (15KB, 746x38px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 746x38px

>>15799404

>>15799406
>SPAAG's are only a threat if you're too poor for stealth aircraft.

File: 1485478449364.jpg (46KB, 760x546px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 760x546px

>>15799407
Yes?

>>15799397
A stealth aircraft should never need to enter the range of a SPAAG. Stealth isn't a magic invisibility cloak. It just decreases the range at which the enemy can see you. At the ranges SPAAG pose a threat to aircraft chances are that you've started to show up on the enemy's radar and you may even be within visual range..

>>15799386
>all that dakka
Just like in muh evanjellyons

>>15797783

Nigga what

The F-22 looks loads more futuristic than the Su...whatever the PAK-FA production model is called. The F-23 Black Widow II even more so, judging that Lockheed Martin decided to use an apparent ripoff for their next fighter layout.

Plus, according to NGAD proposals everything in the future is going to be a flying wing. The Horten brothers were right!

>>15799282

In one of the video games a friend proposed to me the bad guys use airborne aircraft carriers that take a giant version of the Tu-95 Bear prototype (Effectively combining eight of the production model Bears' engines linked in pairs to four nacelles!) and give it an aircraft layout similar to the Boeing 747 AAC.

How did they get these monsters off the ground? Simple, bolt rocket boosters to it like that C-130!

>>15799411

Whoa, what's that thing? Is it that NGC/BAE competitor to the F-35?

>>15800435

And to think only every fifth round is a tracer!

>>15800440
SIR, THIS IS A BLUE BOARD.

File: Leo2 Beer Holder.webm (2MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x404px

>>15800703

>>15800735

Is gun stabilization the greatest MBT development since WWII? I bet it's up there, I can't imagine being a gunner before it was implemented.

But then again being able to see the target in the first place is kind of important.

File: atgm.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>15800831

Arguably composite armors are more important.

With the advent of ATGM's, it was assumed that tanks were on the way out because the amount of HRA needed to defeat them made tanks uselessly heavy and large.

Composite armors allowed tanks to survive and thrive.

>pic-related: What happens when you take a non-composite armor tank onto the modern battlefield

>>15800831
the advent of the Hunter killer system is the greatest MBT Development. gun stabilization doesn't' do anything if you can't find your next target.

File: AC7SU_14_1485425740.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

Who here is hyped for Ace Combat 7?

File: F-104.jpg (134KB, 2048x3072px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 2048x3072px

>>15800882

Me

>tfw get to fly the Dream Fighter

File: AceCombat7-6.jpg (175KB, 1920x1024px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1920x1024px

>>15800890
Wonder what the new superplane will be like

File: ScreenShot00426_1503315284.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>15800882
>>15800890
http://www.dualshockers.com/ace-combat-7-trailer-screenshots/

File: f35.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>15799282
is wrong that all these moving mechanical parts make me rock hard?

File: F35STOVL animation.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>15801773
I'm pretty sure most people on this board are attracted to complex moving parts.

>>15801778
>>15801773
>>15797824
>>15797237
>>15797816
I don't care what anyone says. I love F-35-chan!

File: raptor hatch.webm (417KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 600x338px

>>15801773

>>15801772

I'm reminded of Porco Rosso

File: 1345938967729.jpg (100KB, 562x750px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 562x750px

A /m/k/ thread? NICE!

>>15801773

Never knew they could use the VTOL function for STOL instead. That's admittedly kind of clever.

Also, if you want to see loads of moving parts, watch autoloaders in action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBm-FPcz850

XM2001 Crusader versus M109 Paladin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4w60S8hIiY

XM11203 Non-Line of Sight-Cannon autoloader in action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICifnf63lCs

USS Salem, Des Moines class heavy cruiser with automatic 8-inch guns (Also a thing with the 3"50RF before that)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rsML92PLbU

Proposed autoloader for the M1A3 Abrams, likely combined with an electrothermal ignition cannon

File: F-35MCASMiramar.webm (3MB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x480px

>>15801818
me too.

>>15802960

Found a longer video for the autoloader systems (And some others).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr7TsajOSng

>>15800890
>Will go down on you at the slightest provocation, especially if you're german
Truly best waifu

>>15801778
oh boy, that doesn't look prome to malfunctions at all.
And what could go wrong then.

>>15804193
The Harrier seemed to do fine.

>>15801935
lewd.

File: VIFF-2.jpg (74KB, 710x773px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 710x773px

>>15804606
>>15804193
F-35B can't VIFF

File: paris airshow 2017 F-35 manuevers.png (201KB, 800x616px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 800x616px

>>15806106
Why not?

>>15800657
>And to think only every fifth round is a tracer!
I don't think so.
Looks like full tracers to me, but I never really worked with anti air.

>>15806382

IIRC they don't make every round a tracer because usually you know where they're going just by watching a few.

Also, it's worth noting that in fighters at least the very last rounds of the belt are all tracers, that way you know you're out of ammunition.

I remember watching a video where they were testing prototypes for the M61 Vulcan, and in one of them they decided to make ALL of the rounds tracers to monitor where the hell they were actually going. It was true fireworks, you might as well imagine a giant beam was coming out of the gun.

Sadly I can't find it on YouTube. The original footage was on some History Channel show.

>>15807990
Modern fighters usually use gatling guns with obscene rates of fire.
Those are clearly not gatling guns.

Link related, c-rams bullet hosing the air
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heLuUd0VK2s
I remember hearing that they use all tracer ammo because the tracer is integrated into the self destruct mechanism but I don't know if it's true

File: Capture.png (871KB, 1206x644px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 1206x644px

can't tanks and planes (and helicopters) get along

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEb0jK8_46E

File: 11899728059312.jpg (716KB, 2000x1003px) Image search: [Google]

716KB, 2000x1003px

>>15808084

This

Combine Arms is the Best Arms

File: WNUS_1-1-75_mk1_projectiles_pic.jpg (56KB, 393x522px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 393x522px

>>15808073

IIRC the C-RAM does use all tracers so that when the tracer goes out it ignites the fuse in oder to self-destruct the projectile.

Similar system was used on the 1.1"/75s used during WWII.

However, most 20mm Vulcans don't entirely use HE rounds. Quite a few of them are simply AP rounds, and AFAIK AP rounds don't need to be tracers.

But yeah, at this point I'm not sure. Take what I say with a grain of salt.

>>15808084

Realistically none of these should be considered "superior/inferior". Fighter jets may be good against tanks but in the end they can't support infantry. And you don't win a war without infantry.

File: A-10 2.jpg (219KB, 1656x963px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1656x963px

>>15808128
>Fighter jets may be good against tanks but in the end they can't support infantry.

That's where the other jets come into play

>>15808143

An A-10 can fuck up tanks, sure, but in the end it's not actually doing something to protect infantry. Tanks can do that, not planes.

>>15808158
they don't need protecting from enemies if enemies are dead

>>15808158

I don't think an A-10 has attacked an tank since 2003, that doesn't mean it hasn't been protective af of the grunts on the ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENv3L_zbjg

File: 06a1d8a80180f9e89174cb9866e46fb2.jpg (132KB, 1024x766px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1024x766px

>>15806117
F35B has to slow right down before it can open its vertical lift doors and transitioning takes several seconds.

Harrier can just turn its nozzles vertical in a split second even at high speed

>>15809340
On the other hand, the F-35 doesn't need to get into knife fight range in the first place, since it has fancy pants 360 degree sensor coverage built in that can spot a golf ball at 90nm. So being able to vector thrust like the Harrier in order to dogfight isn't necessary.
I've heard that Lockheed is working on a TVC capable F135 though, so that might change in the future.

File: 2017-06-13_0612.png (2MB, 1767x962px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1767x962px

>>15800882
Absolutely

>>15809340
>>15809367
vertical landing/take off is for runway shortage, not for dogfight. been watching too much Macross?

>>15809465
Thanks for your input, Captain Obvious

>>15808158
It's more about staying in the AO for long periods of time providing much needed air cover than taking out tanks. The A-10 is the perfect plane for that

>>15809772
No, drones are perfect for that.