How come cars look dated after a few years, but the Leopard 2

A better question would be why the Air Force burned through new plane models like they were fast food back in the 50s and 60s, but have now been using mostly 70s planes for 40 years.

File: sand ninja.png (64KB, 1324x217px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1324x217px

>>13887167
not to go all /pol/ac/k/, but why would you need to create hypermodern bleeding edge aircraft every other tuesday if you're fighting people that can't even afford a calculator and still send propaganda messages via VHS?

>>13887167
ya i wondered that too

>>13887167

Probably because there were no serious opposition after the 70's?

Commies were better at airplanes than sand niggers, let's face that.

>>13887167
Cost.

File: 1422221684439.jpg (60KB, 609x676px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 609x676px

>>13887167
Never thought about that, it's quite remarkable actually.

Was there any major leap in technology, materials or manufacturing or some new quality requirements from the air force?

>>13887167
The aviation industry is like that as well. Airplane engines are from the 50's and still need leaded fuel

>>13887167
The cold war/arms race ended.

>>13887167
There was a technological breakthrough (jet engines/supersonic flight) that was followed by a period of intense experimentation and refinement. Bit after a while new more refined and powerful designs were still based on the same underlying concepts, and building newer, better jets yielded decreasing returns. So the 70's tech stuck because it was the best and most reliable for what you payed for.

Tech that did see lots of advancement after the 70's, like electronics, could be easily retrofitted to older designs.

These are also the reasons we still use the Abrams today.

>>13887221
>The cold war/arms race ended.
True. Which begs the question, what type of planes would we be seeing right now had the cold war gone on?

File: 1429390678716.jpg (85KB, 528x587px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 528x587px

>>13887253
No idea, but a potential war against a fellow superpower certainly produces more interesting planes than asymmetric warfare against some camelfuckers.

File: blackbird-sr-71-wallpaper.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>13887253
Not sure but I wish we had a suitable replacement for the SR71

>inb4 U2

File: 1433712055738.jpg (10KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 320x320px

>>13887280
This

>>13887280
>suitable replacement
Yeah, we do, they're called SATELLITES

>>13887167
Because those were the early days of jets, dipshit.
It was a new tech.

File: 1417632001790.jpg (22KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 320x240px

>>13887288
boring

>>13887167
The answer is actually pretty simple:

Before the age of ICBMs military policy was focused on having the latest most advanced nuclear delivery systems. So they poured billions into the Air Force, creating hordes of new fighters, bombers and such that would be capable of delivering nuclear weapons in a war against the Soviet Union.

When ICBMs entered the foray around the early 1960s, funding for Airplane Development began winding down, and the 60s designs of fighters wrapped up into the F-14, F-15 and F-16. They stuck with modernizing these planes to provide the backbone of the Air Force, and would periodically introduce new planes like the F-18, F-22, and the new F-35 which is supposed to replace most of those planes.

As for a similar question of why jet design hasn't really changed since the 60s: its a very heavily regulated market for obvious reasons, and the expense of making a commercial airliner has narrowed the market down to two major corporations, Boeing and Airbus, who really don't aggressively compete with each other, and then there are the Russian designers who nobody in the West buys from (Ilyushin, Tupolev, etc.).

Because of the expense of airplanes, they are often bought used by airline companies. There are still many planes dating back to the 70s and 80s in active use (even McDonnell-Douglas planes are still used), so it isn't a market very ripe with innovation.

File: Sr71_1.jpg (958KB, 1900x1492px) Image search: [Google]

958KB, 1900x1492px

>>13887288
I mean something for manned reconnaissance missions.

>>13887167
Missile technology. Honestly the reason jets were huge in the 60s and 70s is because the nuclear deterrent was mostly from long-range supersonic strategic bombers, and the fighters needed to protect them. In the same way, they were also needed to defend against such a threat.

Once missile technology caught up with and eventually overtook bombs, the military prioritized other shit.

They're mostly used now for a show of force, as support for ground troops, and to deter enemy movements. Even a navy ship can support troops, and with the advent of rail guns, jets will be even less necessary.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (44KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1920x1080px

>>13887303
>>13887323
>tfw ICBMS and cruise missiles killed the based Avro Vulcan

File: B-2_Spirit_original.jpg (2MB, 2000x1252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1252px

>>13887323
Why do you think rail guns will replace jets? They serve massively different purposes

I reaaly think we are on the brink of a revolution in air combat. Drones are changing the way war is fight in the air.

>>13887298
>billion dollar military projects are solely for the purpose of my amusement
Let me guess, you jerk off to A-10s, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi4Ty4XaWWM

>>13887361
Nothing capable of dogfighting or independent decision making. Only good thing uav is good for is spying and dropping bombs on unarmed/undefended people. Using them anywhere else would give the enemy important Intel if captured.

File: sr-71-on-runway-wallpaper.jpg (398KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 1920x1080px

>>13887280
there will never be a replacement to the sr-71 because satellites
v_v

>>13887381

You can remotely pilot drones. Your argument is invalid.

File: What's going on in this thread gundam.jpg (66KB, 500x648px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x648px

>all these faggots jerking off to a plane that literally wets the bed

>>13887338
I never said they will replace jets, just make them less necessary

Rail gun firings are impossible to detect (for now) and are impossible to intercept. Jets are often used to fly under the enemy radar so they can fly close to a target, then launch whatever missile at close range so the enemy can't use countermeasures in time. This is a useful tactic against ships and armored convoys, but it poses a large risk. Rail guns negate that tactic completely.

>>13887408
u mad

>>13887416
military is also interested in them because they're in theory a billion times cheaper than cruise missiles ($569,000 for a Tomahawk) and can fill the same role (big ass gun is a fixed cost, each projectile only costs as much as the chunk of metal and the elecricity required)

File: rf3z44d552foerwoguix.jpg (146KB, 1280x844px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1280x844px

>you will never get into your space suit to pilot your Sled to the edge of Russia

>>13887280
Best plane, who needs flares when you can just fly faster than the missile

>>13887432
A railgun could not fill the role of a cruise missile. Cruise missiles fly themselves. A railgun just fires a projectile.

>>13887432
The advent of smart rounds makes them interesting, too. AND they are figuring out how to add a booster rocket to the projectile which will fire a few seconds before impact. It can mitigate any losses in energy and velocity as the round travelled to its target, or even increase them dramatically.
>mfw they're making the first Bolter rounds

>>13887462
Smart rounds, nigga.

Smart rounds.

>>13887474
And now you have a $500,000 jet propelled missile.

Are Navy pilots better than air force pilots?

File: o-U2-SPY-PLANE-facebook.jpg (479KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 2000x1000px

>>13887416
Air superiority will still be important and rail guns cannot contribute to that. Cool technology though.

>>13887461
Aww yiss

Thread related sorta
http://www.4shared.com/get/SdR2BAfqce/Sled_Driver.html

>>13887462
They main reason they fly themselves is range though. A railgun "just" fires a projectiles, but with comparable range to a cruise missile.

>>13887309
why do manned when u have drones

>>13887502
They fly themselves because they follow the terrain. They change elevation and direction.

>>13887487
Smart rounds don't cost anywhere near that much, nor will they. The Tomahawk costs a fucking shitload because it's a jet engine with a bomb attached to it and because it needs an advanced computer guidance system and support network. About 5 people have to monitor one during its flight, to correct any unforeseen flight deviations and also provide updates to ground troops and whatever.

You're retarded. Just stop talking.

>>13887524
You sir, are an idiot.

>>13887535
>I have nothing to say

>>13887541

do you care about free speech though?

>>13887516
Unmanned a shit desu

>>13887551
Oh shit didn't realized word filters were active

>tank
>modern
Pick one...
Tanks are one of the most ancient war relics still in use today.

>>13887541
I already said it. You just ignored it. Putting a guidance system on a projectile will require both the guidance system and an engine to enable it to change elevation and direction...like a fucking cruise missile.

>>13887149
>tank
>styling
pick one and only one

File: 8489794780_a095cdf00e_k.jpg (2MB, 2048x1103px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1103px

>>13887149
>How come cars look dated after a few years
:^)

>>13887567
And it still won't cost anywhere near a cruise missile because it's a projectile and not a jet engine. Rounds will be fired on a ballistic trajectory, so the round will not have to adjust itself to terrain since it will basically be falling towards a target, basically like artillery.

Smart shells already exist, at around $300k per shell. this is cheaper than a cruise missile and they have similar on-target effects. They don't have much range, but when you develop them for railguns, the cost-effectiveness of such rounds suddenly becomes massive.

>>13887602
>Rounds will be fired on a ballistic trajectory
And now we come full circle. This is why it will not replace a Tomahawk missile. It also cannot be recalled or diverted. It's targeting cannot be updated or altered either. There's about dozen other things they cannot achieve either.

>>13887630

Do you work for Raytheon or something?

>>13887288
Satellites are only good if you happen to have one flying over where you need it right then.

>>13887658
>Implying the government doesnt have a network of geosynchronous satalites covering the world
Dont need them flying anywhere when they are fixed

>>13887630
We're talking about smart rounds, faggot. Pay attention.

>>13887809
>Pay attention.
That's an ironic post anon.

>>13887828
I like how you keep using babbys first quips. Is it because you're running out of things to say?

>>13887848
Oh good grief. You stopped being relevant 1 hour ago.

>>13887864
In which "how to sound clever" guide did you find this remark? It's pretty good.

File: International-Space-Station.jpg (706KB, 2048x1344px) Image search: [Google]

706KB, 2048x1344px

>>13887693
>GPS satellites
>Reconnaissance
Wut?

>>13887167
Diminishing returns. Look it up.

Jets have gotten to the point where investing assloads in the newest greatest shit isnt' worth it (see F35)

>>13887149
>>13887167
This thread was completely detailed in one reply.

File: 5783283-a-us-military-helmet-with-an-m1-mitchell-pattern-camouflage-cover-from-the-vietnam-war-and-six-round.jpg (89KB, 1200x1002px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1200x1002px

>>13887563
?

>>13887167
F15 is like owning a honda civic of the 90-2000s. Thing can last for fucking ever if used right.

>>13887253
That's not what begs the question means. It means that the other person is assuming a premise.

>>13887474
A Block II TLAM-A has a range of 1500 miles the railgun on the USNS Trenton has range of ~50miles

File: mikoyan_mig_mfi.jpg (122KB, 600x370px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 600x370px

>>13887253
same shit. the arms race stagnated after detente

File: ClarenceLeonardKellyJohnson.jpg (34KB, 500x414px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x414px

>>13887167
Because fuckin' Kelly Johnson died.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_%28engineer%29

>
>he designed the F-80 Shooting Star, America's first jet fighter and shipped completed planes only 143 days after the design process began
>he designed the first retractable landing gear
>he lead the design of the U2 spy plane
>he lead the design of the SR-71
>he designed the F-94 Star Fire, the first jet with afterburners
>he designed the F-104 Star Fighter, the first American jet to hit Mach 2
>he started and lead Skunk Works for almost 40 years
>literally kicked employees in the ass when he didn't like what they did
>got into constant bar fights
>fucked his wife 5 times a week until he developed Alzheimer's at 75
>has a huge stack of medals even though he never served a day in the military

fucker was legendary

>>13890477
The real story was that he was killed in Roswell by the grays. They found his body in hangar 18.

>>13890477
>>fucked his wife 5 times a week until he developed Alzheimer's at 75
At which time he fucked his daughters, neighbors, and grocery store cashiers 5 times a day who he mistook for his wife.

File: Iberia_Lockheed_L-1049G_Super_Constellation.jpg (188KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1024x683px

>>13890477
Don't forget the P-38 and the Connies. Dude was already a legend before he started working with jets.

>>13887488
Doesn't take a skilled pilot to drop guided bombs sandniggers at mach 1.5 anyway.
But the Navy itself is better than the Air Force, so ye.

>>13890512
God bless america

no newer standard to hold it too?

File: 194090a1035d2d3ffb2d1f694a5ba511.jpg (177KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 640x480px

>>13887149
because that's a 2A5 built in the 1990s

File: noice.png (123KB, 317x131px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 317x131px

How come other guns look dated after a few years but this thing is still such a beauty?

>>13887390
>>13887449
>>13887280
>>13887309
I'm rock solid right now

>>13887880
A satellite is just something that flys in space and communicates data. They aren't necessarily just for positioning (Global Positioning Satellite). Reconnaissance satellite use a radar array designed for am imaging technique known as Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). The declassified, publicly known resolution on commercial SAR satellites is 1 foot. They can take images of huge swaths of land at a time as well depending on their orbit altitide.

In response to the question of why we need a recon plane when we have satellite is this:

Although the US does have a large satellite array, it's still not global. They 'task' the satellites over areas of interest, generally planned before something happens based on intelligence gathering. That takes a while though, and response time may not be high enough for an immediate threat. We're talking probably a few hours. A plane can be deployed immediately and start getting data quicker than a satellite, on average. Another pitfall is that satellites are not a long term solution to gathering data either. If full scale war broke out, the satellites are coming down whether international law likes it or not. All of the major powers have anti-satellite missile capabilites.

I'm sure we have something more capable than the SR-71 by now. Although this new generation of people may seem dumb, I'm sure there are still a large number of black projects going on that will never see the light of day until 40 years from now.

Anyway point is, there's a time and place for all of them, and one is not better than the other. The reason we need all the different platforms is so that we have redundancy if one of them gets taken out. A good example of that is the Nuclear Triad, and is the primary form of nuclear deterrence, because everybody is going to get nuked, no matter who shoots first.

I pray for humanity.

File: 1 sr71.jpg (419KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 1920x1080px

>>13891282
oh baby, we havent even started yet

gentlemen, rev up those cocks

File: 2 sr71.jpg (2MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1600px

>>13891537

File: 10 sr71.jpg (175KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1600x1000px

>>13891540
and yes, i know there are actually not SR-71s

File: 11 sr71.jpg (546KB, 2937x1924px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 2937x1924px

>>13891547

File: losses0042a.jpg (25KB, 709x271px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 709x271px

>>13891282
lol can't turn

File: Luzon0005c.jpg (55KB, 640x454px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x454px

>>13891560

File: fastest kids on the block.png (243KB, 1648x1469px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1648x1469px

>>13891551

>>13891560
who needs to turn when you are outpacing the sun itself?

>>13891560
>>13891563
>32 made
>12 lost
Not a good track record with them

File: WEB10860-2008h.jpg (2MB, 1955x2079px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1955x2079px

>>13891566

>>13891587
well, thats might be true, but if you are looking for a truly atrocious record, check the starfighter