# Military Plane discussion thread



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 10, 2019)

This thread is for discussing military planes.


----------



## IV 445 (Jul 10, 2019)

ENEMY AC130 ABOVE SPETSNAZ 10 HOURS MEME MW2
					

subscribe lmao ENEMY ENEMY ENEMY AC 130 ABOVE 10 HOURS ENEMY ACE 130 ABOVE EARRPAE AC130 ABOVE SPETSNAZ 10 HOURSAC130 ABOVE SPETSNAZ 10 HOURSAC130 ABOVE SPET...




					youtu.be


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 10, 2019)

If Lockheed made the CL-1200, it would’ve been interesting.


----------



## FA 855 (Jul 10, 2019)

Horten Ho 229 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



Any fixed wing aircraft is something I love, sleek designs and aesthetics are what I'm all about. Nazi Germany designed the Horten Ho in the last days of World War 2. It was a wonderwaffe that consumed fuel like crazy and was really never mass produced or practical for mass production, but it is impressive for the time it was made.
I love B2's as well ofc.








						Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



This thing has a terrible safety record but again, I have a thing for sleek looking aircraft that are gimmicky. This is expensive, dangerous (for the pilot, basically any fuckups are heavily punished, and performing a successful autorotation on a v22 is extremely difficult allegedly), and cool. I also like Apaches and Chinooks.


----------



## Arctic Fox (Jul 10, 2019)

I will always hold a special affinity for the B29. Such a beautiful weapon of war.


----------



## break these cuffs (Jul 10, 2019)

No Spooky


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Jul 10, 2019)

>No MiG-21 in the poll

Also the PAK-FA is the best looking plane currently in service.


----------



## The Un-Clit (Jul 10, 2019)

break these cuffs said:


> No Spooky



Agreed! no love for the spooky gunship? That thing was fucking voodoo. Death out of nowhere in the middle of the night from a converted cargo plane raining hot metal from a pylon turn.

Take the F-104 out of this list and put in the Spooky. The F-104 killed more NATO pilots then entire squadrons of MiG-21s.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 10, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> >No MiG-21 in the poll


Well it focuses more on American planes. I should’ve made that clear.

Also the F-22 Naval variant should’ve been made.





 A variable sweep wing F-22 would’ve been cool.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Jul 10, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> Well it focuses more on American planes. I should’ve made that clear.
> 
> Also the F-22 Naval variant should’ve been made.
> 
> ...


Variable geometry is a meme that raises operational costs, still would've been better than the JSF though.


----------



## RomanesEuntDomus (Jul 10, 2019)

Me 109:





Heinkel 111:


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 10, 2019)

RomanesEuntDomus said:


> Me 109:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice! I don’t know much about German WWII era planes but those look fine!


----------



## Gustav Schuchardt (Jul 10, 2019)

The F-35 gets a lot of shit but it changes the strategic balance between the US and China. The US and its allies have a bunch of "helicopter carriers", LHA, LPH, LHD, etc which could accommodate the F-35B and the F-35B can take off from a very minimal airbase with no runway. So in a war with China the US would have a lot more places for fast jets to take off from.

In fact it's plausible in a war without the F-35B China would attempt to use ballistic missiles to sink US carriers and cut runways in US and allied bases in an attempt to stop allied jets taking off. With the F-35B that is almost impossible.

Of course this sort of thing is not lost on the Chinese, and it makes a war less likely.

Was it a good idea to roll the VTOL program into the program developing land and carrier based planes? Maybe not. Still it did guarantee the US and its allies have a bunch of stealthy, supersonic VTOL aircraft and that I think is strategically important.

tl;dr - the F-35B dindu nuffin wrong.  It's tryin' to get its life in order, plannin' to go to Asia to defend freedom.


----------



## RomanesEuntDomus (Jul 10, 2019)

Gustav Schuchardt said:


> tl;dr - the F-35B dindu nuffin wrong. It's tryin' to get its life in order, plannin' to go to Asia to defend freedom.


Lockheed Martin needs mo money fo dem programms.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 10, 2019)

Gustav Schuchardt said:


> The F-35 gets a lot of shit but it changes the strategic balance between the US and China. The US and its allies have a bunch of "helicopter carriers", LHA, LPH, LHD, etc which could accommodate the F-35B and the F-35B can take off from a very minimal airbase with no runway. So in a war with China the US would have a lot more places for fast jets to take off from.
> 
> In fact it's plausible in a war without the F-35B China would attempt to use ballistic missiles to sink US carriers and cut runways in US and allied bases in an attempt to stop allied jets taking off. With the F-35B that is almost impossible.
> 
> ...


But hey, at least they didn’t go for Boeing’s alternative. cough cough *Pelican* cough cough.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Jul 10, 2019)

Gustav Schuchardt said:


> The F-35 gets a lot of shit but it changes the strategic balance between the US and China. The US and its allies have a bunch of "helicopter carriers", LHA, LPH, LHD, etc which could accommodate the F-35B and the F-35B can take off from a very minimal airbase with no runway. So in a war with China the US would have a lot more places for fast jets to take off from.
> 
> In fact it's plausible in a war without the F-35B China would attempt to use ballistic missiles to sink US carriers and cut runways in US and allied bases in an attempt to stop allied jets taking off. With the F-35B that is almost impossible.
> 
> ...


Lockheed Martin shill pls go.

The X-32 was as mission capable if not moreso and could do SVTOL. The JSF's teething problems have left large chunks of them to more or less grounded and they have had massive cost overruns.


----------



## Autopsy (Jul 10, 2019)

The AMX is behind half a century but I like the way it looks. Almost like something a kid would draw when prompted with "cool fighter plane", except it actually flies.


----------



## break these cuffs (Jul 10, 2019)

The X-32 reminds me of the Corsair II and is thus the superior aircraft. I also liked flying the X-32 more in '97's pc flight simulator Joint Strike Fight. Check and mate. The A-7 Corsair II is also missing from the poll.


----------



## Gustav Schuchardt (Jul 10, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> Lockheed Martin shill pls go.



If wanting our brave marine aviators, who volunteered to put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms, the tools they need to rather than scrimping and trying to save a measly few hundred billion dollars makes me a shill, then so be it.

Let me tell you of Ernesto Valdes, the bravest man I ever met. I was on a Senate visit to highly moderate rebels in Iran. Ernesto was a first generation Cuban American who had volunteered for Operation Iranian Freedom. As he lay dying from injuries in a field hospital I was the only man with him as my Secret Service security detail had ushered his relatives out of the room. Before he passed he said to me "Senator, all we ask of you folks back home is that you give us the tools we need".

I swore an oath that day to do so and today I introduce the Ernesto Valdes Tools We Need Act, incorporating the Near Peer Competitor Air Superiority Program comprising the F-45, F-50 and F-55 procurements, all of which will create over five hundred jobs in my state.

God bless America and God Bless our great armed forces


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 10, 2019)

break these cuffs said:


> The X-32 reminds me of the Corsair II and is thus the superior aircraft. I also liked flying the X-32 more in '97's pc flight simulator Joint Strike Fight. Check and mate. The A-7 Corsair II is also missing from the poll.


Too bad Boeing couldn’t get their act together back then tho. If they had their demonstrator fully completed, they might’ve had a chance.

Also added the A-7 on the poll, just for you!


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 10, 2019)

Poll is missing the F-8 and the A-4, and therefore worthless/gay


----------



## break these cuffs (Jul 10, 2019)

I am extremely biased towards ground attack planes and always have been. Would have loved to see a Warthog BRRRT. We never had to call in fixed wing, but it was always comforting to know that we had helos overhead when we required them. Not just for direct engagement either. Their surveillance capabilities were crucial on night ops when we used them. Got to watch some nighttime Super Cobra guns runs too


----------



## Fuck Y'all (Jul 10, 2019)

now this is german drug-fueled monstrosities thread


----------



## {o{P (Jul 10, 2019)

Fuck Y'all said:


> now this is german drug-fueled monstrosities thread


why is the cockpit filled with water? is it an eva?


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Jul 10, 2019)

No A-4 Skyhawk in your poll?


----------



## Fuck Y'all (Jul 10, 2019)

{o{P said:


> why is the cockpit filled with water? is it an eva?


nah, it's just bad render


----------



## Piss Clam (Jul 10, 2019)

A-10






AC-130


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Jul 10, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> Too bad Boeing couldn’t get their act together back then tho. If they had their demonstrator fully completed, they might’ve had a chance.
> 
> Also added the A-7 on the poll, just for you!


The deciding factor for DoD was the VTOL gimmick. Also, allegedly the Chinks compromised Boeing's servers and got access to the X-32s technical data too IIRC.

On an unrelated note Sukhoi designs the best looking modern fighter aircraft. Change my mind.


----------



## Gustav Schuchardt (Jul 10, 2019)

Oh look it's an horrid Air Grouper



You'd better not bite me, you ugly cunt


----------



## SigSauer (Jul 10, 2019)

What about this gay plane?


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Jul 10, 2019)

Avro Arrow or GTFO


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 10, 2019)

The Tomcat is a Vietnam vet since it was used to escort planes fleeing from the fall of Saigon, thus making it a 3rd gen fighter (along with lacking FBW and having systems so complex it required a backseater to do more than just work the radar)

I've started so many fights in San Diego and Kingsville with that line


----------



## Martys_not_smarty (Jul 10, 2019)

I'm a booster for one of the most underappreciated in it's role planes of WWII: the P-39 Airacobra.  Here's a plane that didn't get the Army Air Corps contract over the Mustang because it was lacking in the doctrine they wanted which was long range, high altitude escort and interception so they pawned it off on the British and same thing they needed bomber escorts so they pawned those off to the Soviets who absolutely adored it seeing as that most of the airfields they'd be taking off from were relatively close to the fighting distance wasn't an issue and Germany was big on dive so high altitude fighting also wasn't a big deal in fact if you look at the ten highest kill confirmed Soviet aces half were done in the P-39 and another fun fact the last plane shot down by the Germans before surrendering and the last German plane shot down by were both P-39's.


----------



## BScCollateral (Jul 10, 2019)

I am not an expert, but I will always have great affection for the B-58.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 10, 2019)

BScCollateral said:


> I am not an expert, but I will always have great affection for the B-58.



I got to go inside the one at Pima Air and Space last year. It's a very neat plane even when it's mostly gutted. One of those beautiful late 50s planes that looks like it's going 1800 knots when its just sitting on the ground









						Convair B-58 Hustler Low Level Bombing Capabilities
					

The mach 2 Convair B-58 HUSTLER was the vanguard of low-level bombing techniques used in later aircraft. This old film, salvaged from antiquainted 2" studio ...




					www.youtube.com
				




It also sounds just like the F-14 when it flies overhead, which is neat


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 11, 2019)

The Douglas A-1 Skyraider is an amazing aircraft!


----------



## Pol Pots Pooter (Jul 11, 2019)

Didn't work the way they hoped it would, but honestly, I gotta give 'em props for the effort.


----------



## The_wandering_nibler (Jul 11, 2019)

The Mig 21 had the highest KDR. Murican thread, murican planes, lul.

But damnit American planes are pretty sexy.


My favourite plane in relative terms is this one tho:






Focke Wulf Ta 152


A beast of a plane, the fastest combat prop plane of the era (produced in any numbers) with additional speed possible through methanol injection and a second boost of nitro injection.
Armed with a 30 MM Cannon and a 20 MM Cannon it could shred bombers and tanks. Superb in every way, cheaper to produce than the jet fighters and really the thing that might have saved German industry and slowed down the war for at least 6 months had it been introduced earlier.







The red color was used for a special early flyaway over heavy german flack, painted red so they would know it was a german pilot and not a new allied aircraft.


----------



## ZooSmell (Jul 11, 2019)

The F-16 is far to overlooked. Such a versatile and agile aircraft that can be used in a number of roles. M61A1 Vulcan, 10 hardpoints (2 on the wingtips, 6 under the wings, 3 under the fuselage) and a maximum load of 77 hundred kilograms. It comes in single and two seat variants, and also can be configured with numerous different software and avionics. The US even made a completely unmanned prototype, and are considering introducing a full unmanned drone F-16. We are getting closer to Ace Combat 7 than you think.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Jul 11, 2019)

Why can't Illyushin make a jet attack aircraft that doesn't look retarded?







ZooSmell said:


> The F-16 is far to overlooked. Such a versatile and agile aircraft that can be used in a number of roles. M61A1 Vulcan, 10 hardpoints (2 on the wingtips, 6 under the wings, 3 under the fuselage) and a maximum load of 77 hundred kilograms. It comes in single and two seat variants, and also can be configured with numerous different software and avionics. The US even made a completely unmanned prototype, and are considering introducing a full unmanned drone F-16. We are getting closer to Ace Combat 7 than you think.


The F-5 is way more underappreciated, at least the F-16 had extensive export sales.


----------



## The Un-Clit (Jul 11, 2019)

Piss Clam said:


> AC-130



Fuck yes. The AC-130 SpookyII/Spectre etc etc. is THE badass of the 'Nam era and beyond. Plz to be adding to the list, @Cedric_Eff !  If strictly 'Nam era planes are needed, the original AC-47 Spooky might have to go in it's place, but I insist on some member of the family getting repped.  
Else.


----------



## Piss Clam (Jul 11, 2019)

The Un-Clit said:


> Fuck yes. The AC-130 SpookyII/Spectre etc etc. is THE badass of the 'Nam era and beyond. Plz to be adding to the list, @Cedric_Eff !  If strictly 'Nam era planes are needed, the original AC-47 Spooky might have to go in it's place, but I insist on some member of the family getting repped.
> Else.



If I'm on the ground I want those fuckers flying over me.




> Puff's first significant success occurred on the night of 23–24 December 1964. An FC-47 arrived over the Special Forces outpost at Tranh Yend in the Mekong Delta just 37 minutes after an air support request, fired 4,500 rounds of ammunition, and broke the Viet Cong attack. The FC-47 was then called to support a second outpost at Trung Hung, about 20 miles (32 km) away. The aircraft again blunted the VC attack and forced a retreat. Between 15 and 26 December, all the FC-47's 16 combat sorties were successful. On 8 February 1965, an FC-47 flying over the Bong Son area of Vietnam's Central Highlands demonstrated its capabilities in the process of blunting a Viet Cong offensive. For over four hours, it fired 20,500 rounds into a Viet Cong hilltop position, killing an estimated 300 Viet Cong troops.
> 
> The early gunship trials were so successful, the second aircraft was returned to the United States early in 1965 to provide crew training. In July 1965, Headquarters USAF ordered TAC to establish an AC-47 squadron. By November 1965, a total of five aircraft were operating with the 4th Air Commando Squadron, activated in August as the first operational unit, and by the end of 1965, a total of 26 had been converted. Training Detachment 8, 1st Air Commando Wing, was subsequently established at Forbes AFB, Kansas. In Operation Big Shoot, the 4th ACS in Vietnam grew to 20 AC-47s (16 aircraft plus four reserves for attrition).
> 
> The 4th ACS deployed to Tan Son Nhut Air Base, Vietnam, on 14 November 1965. Now using the call sign "Spooky", each of its three 7.62 mm miniguns could selectively fire either 50 or 100 rounds per second.[1] Cruising in an overhead left-hand orbit at 120 knots air speed at an altitude of 3,000 feet (910 m), the gunship could put a bullet or glowing red tracer (every fifth round) bullet into every square yard of a football field-sized target in potentially less than 10 seconds.[2] And, as long as its 45-flare and 24,000-round basic load of ammunition held out, it could do this intermittently while loitering over the target for hours.


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Jul 11, 2019)

The Hawker Hunter, one of the most elegant and beautiful aircraft ever flown.














Those blisters on the bottom were used to hold spent machine gun shells. These were known as Sabrinas after a well-endowed British pin-up girl of the time.


----------



## Uranus Pink (Jul 11, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> Variable geometry is a meme that raises operational costs, still would've been better than the JSF though.


Variable geometry wings *were* a viable solution to several problems. Just better solutions without the major drawsbacks came along rendering VGW obsolete for future aircraft designs.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 11, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> Why can't Illyushin make a jet attack aircraft that doesn't look exceptional?
> View attachment 837040
> View attachment 837041
> 
> ...


The F16 wasn't supposed to be allowed for export sales.  The F5's progeny, the F20 was made top be the plane sold to interested countries with a less powerful radar and avionics package than the F16 but the same engine.  Then Congress got pressured by General Dynamics and Israel hard to be allowed for export with a different radar and the F20 died overnight,  since the F16A with a less powerful radar cost the same while being a much better aircraft across the board


----------



## 1Tonka_Truck (Jul 11, 2019)

No 50's pickup truck A-6 either. Just because they were finally retired doesn't mean they're dead.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 12, 2019)

Who ever voted fuck the Vietnam War is a hippie cuck.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 13, 2019)

Japan’s next generation F-15 replacement lol.








Japan’s making their own stealth fighter to compliment the F-35’s and to potentially replace the F-15’s. But the engine gimbal on the engines of this aircraft is apparently very maneuverable.


----------



## Feline Supremacist (Jul 13, 2019)

No F-15 Strike Eagle? I could go on and on about it's service record but it's also the subject of a a classic video game and a giant Japanese robot that transforms into one (ok its the F-15A but still).


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 13, 2019)

Feline Supremacist said:


> No F-15 Strike Eagle? I could go on and on about it's service record but it's also the subject of a a classic video game and a giant Japanese robot that transforms into one (ok its the F-15A but still).
> 
> View attachment 839036A


Did it take part in Vietnam?


----------



## Underestimated Nutria (Jul 13, 2019)

Here's a question for the knowledgeable. Do modern, extremely expensive fighters represent more a fear of pilot casualties than an actual attempt at efficiency in war? I mean, are we grossly over valuing pilot lives? Couldn't we build dozens of mediocre jets for the cost of one F35?


----------



## Feline Supremacist (Jul 13, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> Did it take part in Vietnam?


Nah neither did the Focke-Wulf or the F-16


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Jul 13, 2019)

Underestimated Nutria said:


> Here's a question for the knowledgeable. Do modern, extremely expensive fighters represent more a fear of pilot casualties than an actual attempt at efficiency in war? I mean, are we grossly over valuing pilot lives? Couldn't we build dozens of mediocre jets for the cost of one F35?



It takes a long time and great expense to train a pilot, and they’re not quickly or easily replaceable.

In 1941 Japan’s naval pilots were the best trained pilots in the world. By 1944 pretty much all of them were dead, and the navy could’t replace them fast enough since the Japanese pilot training program was such a long and rigorous process (pilots were considered not combat worthy until they received a year of aviation training after they were assigned to a fleet squadron. So by the last 2 years of the war the Japs were so desperate for pilots they rushed young aviation recruits through with minimal training and flight time. Which led to air battles like  the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 13, 2019)

Underestimated Nutria said:


> Here's a question for the knowledgeable. Do modern, extremely expensive fighters represent more a fear of pilot casualties than an actual attempt at efficiency in war? I mean, are we grossly over valuing pilot lives? Couldn't we build dozens of mediocre jets for the cost of one F35?



Mediocre jets would die in droves before ever seeing their objectives and targets.  Modern SAM and AAA systems are meat grinders waiting to happen against anyone and anything that is well prepared and equipped to survive them.  Pilots need to be able to "think" the airplane at the same time they're flying it and fighting in it. 

A 3 minute BFM dogfight in a training environment is exhausting.  I've ran marathons,  swam 3 miles in choppy ocean,  put a roof on in the desert sun and chased my toddler for a full day before carrying him about 2 and a half hours at Disneyland. All of those events felt comparable to doing 2 quick, but balls out engagements in a T45 once after the other.

It's the physical demands of the G forces and constantly moving your head and neck to see the enemy,  the strain of your eyes and abdominals as you try to keep blood in your dome,  the poorly regulated body temps you get in a glass bubble that's 25k ft above the ground and the inevitable need to piss you feel after a few moments of the g suit squeezing your stomach and thighs.

Then there's the mental math you're doing about fuel,  performance at speed and angle of attack all while wondering which tactic you're going to need to attempt based on where you want to try and force the other guy and still not run in to him.

Then throw in combat stress,  the fact that the pilot needs to win this fight abs press on to a target and maintain radio communications with everyone else that's going to be excitedly yelling in his ear while all of this happens around him to try and paint a better picture of tactical awareness. 

Good pilots lives aren't overvalued, they're completely worth every cent invested in them to make sure they can make 16 tons of steel and lead as deadly to the enemy as they can possibly be.


----------



## Ghost88 (Jul 13, 2019)

The F35 lack of dog fight ability I feel is symptomatic of the wests general decline. We're fat, we're lazy, we're building state of the art money suckholes that can't compete with Russian jets for half the price and we're race mixing.

Our greatest strength, our minds and our innovation has been lost.


----------



## Red Hood (Jul 13, 2019)

I admit I'm just here to make jet engine, machine gun and explosion sounds with my mouth.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jul 13, 2019)

Underestimated Nutria said:


> Here's a question for the knowledgeable. Do modern, extremely expensive fighters represent more a fear of pilot casualties than an actual attempt at efficiency in war? I mean, are we grossly over valuing pilot lives? Couldn't we build dozens of mediocre jets for the cost of one F35?


No, because of opportunity cost. Purely for the sake of argument(not a soldier lol) if you have a mission and your carrier/airbase has room, resources, and manpower to maintain however many planes, do you want those valuable spaces and assets taken up by less capable planes, or would you want each one to be the best possible plane you can obtain?


----------



## NerdShamer (Jul 13, 2019)

Mister Qwerty said:


> In 1941 Japan’s naval pilots were the best trained pilots in the world. By 1944 pretty much all of them were dead, and the navy could’t replace them fast enough since the Japanese pilot training program was such a long and rigorous process (pilots were considered not combat worthy until they received a year of aviation training after they were assigned to a fleet squadron. So by the last 2 years of the war the Japs were so desperate for pilots they rushed young aviation recruits through with minimal training and flight time. Which led to air battles like  the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot.


You forgot to include how crippled the Japanese were. Yes, their pilots used kamikaze tactics; but they were going through an shortage of resources, delays in aircraft production, and more importantly, excluding self-sealing fuel tanks and armor for their planes.


----------



## The Un-Clit (Jul 13, 2019)

@Cedric_Eff , I can't change my vote. Not sure how much control you have over the poll, but if you can please change my vote from the F-111 to the AC-47 Spooky. Thanks, fam!


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Jul 13, 2019)

Love the rough beauty of the early jets. The De Havilland Vampire, used by the good guys in the Rhodesian Bush War..



and the Saab Tunnan, as used by the bad guys (Swedes) in the Congo.



The three British V-Bombers, which came a little later (roughly contemperous with early B-52s), are also very special.



Painted in the later low level camouflage, they remind me of the cover art on science fiction magazines from that time period. The less ambitious 'Valiant' from the three was the only one to go to war until the Falklands Liberation in 1982, when a series of extremely long range raids conducted by single Vulcan bombers supported by upwards of ten Victor tankers refuelling each other convinced the Argentinian government of the time to send their fighter forces back to defend the homeland.



The only Murrican bomber that comes close is the XB-70. Not put into production. Very sad!


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 13, 2019)

How the hell is a plane like this aerodynamic and can withstand Mach 2?


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 14, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> How the hell is a plane like this aerodynamic and can withstand Mach 2?



Same as the F-104. Tiny wings that are heavily reinforced through a heavy duty spar and a fuselage built around feeding the turbine so much air so quickly that it has to go fast


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 14, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> Same as the F-104. Tiny wings that are heavily reinforced through a heavy duty spar and a fuselage built around feeding the turbine so much air so quickly that it has to go fast


We all can agree that the MiG-29 sucks right? I mean once you’re in a dive with those things, you’re gonna end up as a pancake on the ground with those things. I mean back during the Persian Gulf War, a MiG-29 fought an F-15 and dove to out maneuver the F-15 but the plane didn’t pitch up fast enough to escape the dive and just slammed into the ground.


----------



## ZooSmell (Jul 14, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> How the hell is a plane like this aerodynamic and can withstand Mach 2?



You see comrade, you must put all your faith in superior Soviet aero engineering. Use cheapest materials possible to make jet as fast as possible and shoot down Western dogs.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 14, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> We all can agree that the MiG-29 sucks right? I mean once you’re in a dive with those things, you’re gonna end up as a pancake on the ground with those things. I mean back during the Persian Gulf War, a MiG-29 fought an F-15 and dove to out maneuver the F-15 but the plane didn’t pitch up fast enough to escape the dive and just slammed into the ground.


 The 29 is great for a low cost,  high speed fighter.  Problem is the average 29 pilot lacks the training needed to utilize their plane right.  The legacy hornet handles surprisingly similar to the 29, just slower with better avionics and vastly superior ergonomics. Plenty of Hornet guys have killed plenty of F15s and 16s at Red Flag and elsewhere.  Dogfighting is all about playing your hand in such a way that the other guy can't use his advantages.


----------



## Spunt (Jul 14, 2019)

Yeah remember that the incredible combat record of the F-15 (never shot down by a hostile aircraft, over 200 air to air kills) was achieved by US and Israeli pilots. The MiG-29's dismal record was achieved by assorted Pakistanis, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Serbs whose training consisted of 3 hours in Microsoft Flight Simulator for Windows 3.1 and a photocopy of the first 2 chapters of the manual, in Russian. 

The F-15 and F-16 are undoubtedly superior but not by as much as the statistics would suggest, especially when you compare the relative purchase and maintenance costs.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 14, 2019)

Spunt said:


> Yeah remember that the incredible combat record of the F-15 (never shot down by a hostile aircraft, over 200 air to air kills) was achieved by US and Israeli pilots. The MiG-29's dismal record was achieved by assorted Pakistanis, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Serbs whose training consisted of 3 hours in Microsoft Flight Simulator for Windows 3.1 and a photocopy of the first 2 chapters of the manual, in Russian.
> 
> The F-15 and F-16 are undoubtedly superior but not by as much as the statistics would suggest, especially when you compare the relative purchase and maintenance costs.



Saudi's have the highest successful kill count with the 15. But they are all trained by US pilots and supposedly by some IAF guys as well but that's just conjecture, really.  

But the F15 is almost infinitely superior to almost every airplane outside of the F22 and Eurofighter. Between the avionics,  radar,  weapons and insane amount of on demand power thanks to their over sized engines.  

The only plane that ever did well against it in a head to head engagement from 30+ miles out was the Tomcat,  and then when it got closer it was a coin flip until the turning fight started and the 15 was almost always the winner.  The the thrust to weight ratio and fly by wire controls were just too much for the heavier,  lower tech cat to overcome.  

The 16 otoh is more evenly matched in the newer models as it's gotten heavier and less maneuverable.  It used to be the best turning fighter bar none over 320 kts and extremely dangerous under it since it could regain speed so quickly. It has become significantly more dangerous at distance though thanks to the b and c AMRAAMs and the upgraded datalink and radar.


----------



## The Un-Clit (Jul 14, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> Saudi's have the highest successful kill count with the 15. But they are all trained by US pilots and supposedly by some IAF guys as well but that's just conjecture, really.
> 
> But the F15 is almost infinitely superior to almost every airplane outside of the F22 and Eurofighter. Between the avionics,  radar,  weapons and insane amount of on demand power thanks to their over sized engines.
> 
> ...



If only the proposed 'Super Tomcat' midlife revision had come to be, there'd be almost no need or desire for the F-35 Boondoggle in any of the US forces or the rest of the world's potential buyers, the few that remain anyway. That thing was going to be fucking unreal.  I don't have the proposed stats handy, I gotta dig that back up but that plane was going to be THE naval fighter of the 2000s.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 14, 2019)

The F35 is fine. It's just the victim of really bad journalism,  terrible Senate hearings and internet/armchair fighter jocks. I know about 5 guys now who currently fly them,  2 A, 2 B and a guy with time in the C. All of them love it compared to their previous rides.  Both guys in the A were viper drivers and say it is much deadlier at distance and scarier in a knife fight due to the 9x and the JHMCS. 
The C guy was a hornet and rhino guy who says so far the C is a vastly superior low strike platform though it lacks some utility the rhino has, so it should be a good augment to the fleet's strike capability.

The B is well liked for not being the harrier as well as being able to actually be useful for anything outside of CAS and adjust range interdiction.  Not to mention it can survive contact with SAMs now,  which alone makes it worth putting on the LHA/Ds.

I've yet to talk to a pilot with time in the 35 who thinks it's not worth having.  Which says something because i know a good few tomcat guys who fucking despised the rhino when they got assigned to the RAG and Im mountain biking buddies with a retired F4 guy who hated flying the Tomcat.


----------



## The_wandering_nibler (Jul 15, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> The 29 is great for a low cost,  high speed fighter.  Problem is the average 29 pilot lacks the training needed to utilize their plane right.  The legacy hornet handles surprisingly similar to the 29, just slower with better avionics and vastly superior ergonomics. Plenty of Hornet guys have killed plenty of F15s and 16s at Red Flag and elsewhere.  Dogfighting is all about playing your hand in such a way that the other guy can't use his advantages.



Also shitty maintance of equipment. A lot of the nations that bought them either didn't care for it or couldn't afford it. Apparently especially radars and obviously engines can suffer.

But I stil gotta say that the F-16 is a better and more cost effective plane than the Mig 29 even though the later is more recent. Really the F16 is like the T34 of planes or something. The degree of interoperability and ease of adaption it seems to have had through its generations is amazing. I don't, maybe they spend a lot to make it work but I haven't heard about any scandals of upgrading them ever. Except in dogfighting, the Russians win due to their head mounted tracking cameras and Mig 29s are slightly better at manouvering.

Training as you say though really is the main difference. It's a shame for the Russians what kind of reputation their equipment got from being used by the Arabs so much.
It's kinda leveling out now with the western equipment in the hands of Saudi Arabia though.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 15, 2019)

The_wandering_nibler said:


> Also shitty maintance of equipment. A lot of the nations that bought them either didn't care for it or couldn't afford it. Apparently especially radars and obviously engines can suffer.
> 
> But I stil gotta say that the F-16 is a better and more cost effective plane than the Mig 29 even though the later is more recent. Really the F16 is like the T34 of planes or something. The degree of interoperability and ease of adaption it seems to have had through its generations is amazing. I don't, maybe they spend a lot to make it work but I haven't heard about any scandals of upgrading them ever. Except in dogfighting, the Russians win due to their head mounted tracking cameras and Mig 29s are slightly better at manouvering.
> 
> ...



Depends? The Saudis are great with some of their stuff/ F-15s, 16s and Abrams seem to do great in their hands. But their Apache pilots won't stop flying them like they're WW2 fighters doing strafing runs instead of proper low-orbit gunships. Jordan's another Arab country that utilizes their Western equipment extremely well and have proven competent fighters with it.

Turkey, on the other hand is a shit show, but they still managed to force down a Flanker with an F-4 a few years back.


----------



## Spunt (Jul 15, 2019)

Also remember that Russia/The USSR tended not to equip their export aircraft as well as their own. I can't remember whether the MiG-29 had a downgraded export variant, but the MiG-23 certainly did, and its barely-functional avionics and ECM was one of the reasons it got torn apart by other aircraft and SAMs every time it got into any kind of fight. The Iraqis got so fed up with their deliberately-downgraded equipment that they would jury-rig their own upgrades, making their MiG-23s just about able to go toe-to-toe with Iranian F4s a generation older and lacking spare parts. Iran's Tomcats still ate them for breakfast until they ran out of Phoenixes though.

Even if the aircraft itself was not downgraded, the weapons systems certainly were. Most export MiG-29s came with Aphid missiles that were already obsolete at the time of sale and had a habit of locking on to the sun rather than jet exhaust. The Soviets kept the best missiles (the later AA-10 models and the AA-11/12s) to themselves for the most part.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 15, 2019)

One of the best things you can read if you're in to hilariously bad Russian fighter design are some of the papers in the Mitroikin archives that describe how much pilots hated the MiG-23/27 and the Su-15. A lot of people don't get that the 23 wasn't at all like the F-14/F-111/Tornado. Those wings were 100 manual and powered by hydraulics that were 100% pressurized by the turbine and had no electrical backup. So if you had an engine failure, hopefully your wings were full forward or your glide ratio was 1rash. And changing the sweep in the wrong phase of flight or speed was a death sentence. The US lost the sole 23 it had for a bit when a USAF general officer with thousands upon thousands of hours under his belt fucked up the sweep while tooling around over Nevada and forgetting to move the wings as he was losing airspeed in a turn. Plane went in to a spin, he failed to eject and the Air Force lost a lot in a single crater somewhere in the desert.

The 23 was a serious disappointment to the Soviets and a big reason why the MiG-29 and Su-27 were both ordered so quickly to full production after they were  able to get a few 23 pilots to sign off on them, because they knew the 23 was completely outmatched by the current US fighter of choice. No, not the F-15 or 16. The Phantom. The 23 was so impossible to control at certain speeds you weren't supposed to take turns over 90 degrees in it UNDER ~480kts because you could lose speed so fast that you could lawn dart the aircraft before the wings could realistically get to the correct sweep to maintain lift


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Jul 15, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> One of the best things you can read if you're in to hilariously bad Russian fighter design are some of the papers in the Mitroikin archives that describe how much pilots hated the MiG-23/27 and the Su-15.


Su-15? Did you mean the Su-17 (also known as the Su-20/Su-22)? I thought Poland prefer it to the MIG-29 and F-16 as it's easier to maintain and repair.


----------



## Uranus Pink (Jul 15, 2019)

3119967d0c said:


> The only Murrican bomber that comes close is the XB-70. Not put into production. Very sad!
> View attachment 840056


Would have been perfect replacement for the B-52 provided the Valkyrie is doing same missions albeit at higher sub-sonic speed and altitude if need be.

Given how many U.S. military aircraft been damage or destroyed via foreign object debris ingestion aka birds over th decades. XB-70 gotten a bad rep for eating a fighter instead of a pigeon.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 15, 2019)

Mister Qwerty said:


> Su-15? Did you mean the Su-17 (also known as the Su-20/Su-22)? I thought Poland prefer it to the MIG-29 and F-16 as it's easier to maintain and repair.


The Su15 wasn't exported for fear of falling in to American hands. They knew it was a terrible intercepter and feared that the US learning that the most numerous bomber killer was a paper tiger would lead to American aggression. It was wildy unreliable, had terrible flight characteristics, couldn't fly for long at any real speed or altitude and the onboard radar was terrible. The MiG25 was ordered to help bolster the defensive capabilities, but when Belenko defected we learned the 25 was an absolute shit heap as well


----------



## Spunt (Jul 16, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> The 23 was a serious disappointment to the Soviets and a big reason why the MiG-29 and Su-27 were both ordered so quickly to full production after they were  able to get a few 23 pilots to sign off on them, because they knew the 23 was completely outmatched by the current US fighter of choice. No, not the F-15 or 16. The Phantom. The 23 was so impossible to control at certain speeds you weren't supposed to take turns over 90 degrees in it UNDER ~480kts because you could lose speed so fast that you could lawn dart the aircraft before the wings could realistically get to the correct sweep to maintain lift



So naturally they made a ground-attack version (the MiG-27) because when do you ever need to go slowly or make tight turns when tank-busting, right?



Mister Qwerty said:


> Su-15? Did you mean the Su-17 (also known as the Su-20/Su-22)? I thought Poland prefer it to the MIG-29 and F-16 as it's easier to maintain and repair.



The Su-17 was an OK bombtruck if it didn't come up against any serious opposition. At least it was reasonably flyable compared to a MiG-23 and the dismal Su-7 that it replaced. The export versions (Su-20 and Su-22) were super-downgraded, but they were cheap as hell and if you're a third-world dictatador who wants something loud and intimidating to drop chemical weapons on civilians they're as good as anything else.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Jul 16, 2019)

Japan might be getting aircraft carriers, but it sounds like they're wanting them for the F-35, since it's VTOL, and the carriers they're thinking of buying are VTOL only.

*Here's How Japan Could Get Real Aircraft Carriers*


Spoiler: Article



Pair some helicopter carriers with F-35s.

by David Axe Follow @daxe on TwitterL



_"For 30 years or more the U.K. and U.S., using AV-8Bs and Sea Harriers, have delivered significant operational effect from similar platforms," wrote Steve George, a former Royal Navy engineering officer._
The British company that built the Royal Navy’s two new _Queen Elizabeth_-class aircraft carriers wants to help Japan modify some of its own ships into carriers.
The Japanese government in November 2018 announced that it plans to enhance its two _Izumo_-class helicopter carriers in order to support F-35B Lightning II stealth fighters.

The announcement followed years of speculation that began even before _Izumo_commissioned into service in 2015.
“Since we are equipped with such vessels, it is desirable that we will use them for various purposes,” Japanese defense minister Takeshi Iwaya told reporters. “We would like to advance our research and studies on this.”

_(This first appeared in June 2019.)_
BAE Systems wants to do the work, Natasha Pheiffer, the company’s managing director in Asia, told Flight Global. “She feels that BAE is well placed to assist Tokyo with the integration of fixed-wing fighters aboard the two ships owing to its work on the U.K.’s _Queen Elizabeth-_class aircraft carriers, which will also operate the F-35B,” Flight Global noted.

Tokyo plans to order another 100 F-35s to supplement the 42 stealth fighters it originally ordered in 2011. The first batch of Japanese F-35s are all A-models that require conventional runways. The new batch presumably would include some vertically-landing F-35B models for shipboard use.
Transforming the two helicopter carriers into aircraft carriers won't be easy. The _Izumo_-class vessels are small for aviation ships. More vexingly, Japan hasn't operated fixed-wing aircraft from ships since World War II, and will need to train pilots, staff and maintainers for the unique challenges of carrier operations.

But other countries have succeeded in operating fixed-wing planes from small aviation ships. Most notably, Italy. Australians are debating whether to modify their own small aviation vessels to carry F-35s.
Japan's post-war constitution forbids offensive military operations. For decades, the country's leaders have interpreted the prohibition to mean the Japanese navy legally could not possess aircraft carriers.

The Japanese fleet sidestepped the carrier-ban by acquiring what it called "helicopter destroyers" -- that is, surface warships with hangars and unusually large flight decks.
The _Izumo _class stretched the credibility of the "helicopter destroyer" moniker. The type lacks major weaponry. Its flight deck extends from stem to stern. It's a carrier in everything but name. In practice, _Izumo _and sister ship _Kaga_, which commissioned in 2017, only have embarked helicopters.

Each 814 feet long and displacing 27,000 tons of water while fully loaded, _Izumo _and _Kaga _are small for carriers. The U.S. Navy's supercarriers each are a thousand feet long and displace more than 100,000 tons. The Americans' amphibious assault ships -- which support helicopters, AV-8B Harrier jump jets and F-35s -- are around 850 feet long and displace 41,000 tons.
But the Japanese ships aren't the smallest aviation ships. The dubious honor belongs to Thailand's _Chakri Naruebet_, which is just 600 feet long and displaces 11,500 tons but still managed to operate a handful of first-generation Harriers until the aging planes finally went into storage in 2006.

In size and function, the _Izumo_s most likely will match Italy's flagship _Cavour_, an 800-feet-long amphibious assault ship that displaces 30,000 tons while fully loaded. _Cavour _typically embarks five Harriers alongside helicopters. Italy is buying new F-35Bs to replace its 16 Harriers.
Lockheed Martin designed the F-35B to match the deck "footprint" of the Harrier. While an F-35 occupies the amount of deck space that a Harrier does, the stealth fighter requires more intensive maintenance -- and its engine exhaust is much hotter than the Harrier's is, requiring the launching ship to have a special, heat-resistant deck coating.

Recoating the _Izumo_s' decks is a straightforward procedure. Potentially more difficult is reorganizing the ships' internal spaces to accommodate the crew, parts, fuel and weapons an F-35 detachment requires. That’s the kind of work BAE Systems presumably would take on if Japan were to hire it for the _Izumo _conversions.
The modifications certainly are feasible, according to one Australian expert who studied the possibility of upgrading the Australian navy's _Canberra_-class assault ships in order to embark F-35s. A _Canberra _is 760 feet long and displaces 30,000 tons, making it roughly the same size as an _Izumo_.

"For 30 years or more the U.K. and U.S., using AV-8Bs and Sea Harriers, have delivered significant operational effect from similar platforms," wrote Steve George, a former Royal Navy engineering officer.
"In my experience, the key challenge in delivering a viable maritime aviation capability wouldn’t be the equipment, but in re-generating the required naval-aviation expertise," George added.

Fortunately for Japan, its navy enjoys a strong alliance with the U.S. Navy. As Tokyo begins preparing the _Izumo_s for F-35s, the Japanese fleet, in theory, could send pilots, staff and crew to train alongside their American counterparts who are already operating F-35s from ships.

David Axe serves as Defense Editor of the National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels _ War Fix, War Is Boring _and _Machete Squad.
Image: Wikimedia_



Link: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/heres-how-japan-could-get-real-aircraft-carriers-66692
Archive: http://archive.md/L8U6Y


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 16, 2019)

Spunt said:


> So naturally they made a ground-attack version (the MiG-27) because when do you ever need to go slowly or make tight turns when tank-busting, right?



The 27 was made a little better by doctrine and a few small changes to the airflow around the fuselage iirc. And even then it was just a way to try and recoup costs on the 23. I think they only converted a few to the 27 instead of the 23K


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Jul 16, 2019)

Saab Draken and Viggen


----------



## Anonymous For This (Jul 16, 2019)

I love the Foxhound.  It isn't that great, but there's something about its ugly aesthetic that does it for me.  

On the other hand, I very much dislike the A10 and the fanboyism associated with it.


----------



## Spunt (Jul 16, 2019)

English Electric Lightning. The first aircraft to break the sound barrier going straight up.

Lightning fact: its only recorded air-to-air kill was an RAF Harrier over West Germany. The pilot had ejected but the plane didn't crash, and in fact continued on autopilot, heading towards the border with the DDR. So a Lightning shot it down to prevent an international incident (not to mention the Soviets getting their hands on a Harrier that they would clearly learn a great deal from, given what a useless, dangerous shitshow the Yak-38 was).

Bonus Lightning fact: there were plans for a "Sea Lightning" carrier-based version. I hope the Fleet Air Arm would have had plenty of spare G-suit trousers, because landing something with the Lightning's glide characteristics on an aircraft carrier is probably one of the most frightening things it's possible to do in an aircraft (apart from flying with South African Airways).

Extra bonus Lightning fact: Jeremy Clarkson bought one and parked it on his front lawn.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 16, 2019)

Here's a Polish mock up that I'm pretty sure was designed by Cobra Commander on a bar napkin





The PZL-230 Skorpion, an attempt at making a light weight, fast, short range CAS fighter by giving the offspring of an F-16 and an SR-71 a bad case of dwarfism


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Jul 16, 2019)




----------



## Spunt (Jul 16, 2019)

The Lightning there demonstrating the aforementioned glide characteristics. The Lightning had glide characteristics in the same way that zero is technically a number.

The pilot survived that crash btw.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 16, 2019)

Spunt said:


> The Lightning there demonstrating the aforementioned glide characteristics. The Lightning had glide characteristics in the same way that zero is technically a number.
> 
> The pilot survived that crash btw.



I remember seeing that picture with the caption _He'd have been better off trying to get the tractor on glide slope _ somewhere


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Jul 16, 2019)




----------



## millais (Jul 16, 2019)

Regarding the thread poll, I like the F-4 naval variants in flight sim. Right now, I am several months into a 1965 Rolling Thunder campaign with F-4B. Cockpit visibility is ok, instrument panel layout is sensible, flight characteristics are more than sufficient for ground pounding flights, and it can carry lots of munitions so always have spare munitions afterwards to hit secondary targets. In the early years of Rolling Thunder, there's no SAMs so after hitting primary target, it's fun to dick around at leisure over coastal North Vietnam, dumping excess bombloads on nice fat harborside oil depots and cargo ships at Tonkin or Haiphong. For tangling with MiGs on CAP flights, it's not so easy to reorient and quickly set up for second pass if the first one is a bust, but it can shoot Sparrows and Sidewinders for days so that presents a very nice margin of error.


----------



## Maltninja (Jul 19, 2019)




----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 26, 2019)

Maltninja said:


>


Most comments I see of an F-117 on YouTube mock the plane for “stealth” and getting shot down by Slavs and the power of Hardbass or whatever.


Anonymous For This said:


> View attachment 844233
> 
> I love the Foxhound.  It isn't that great, but there's something about its ugly aesthetic that does it for me.
> 
> On the other hand, I very much dislike the A10 and the fanboyism associated with it.


I remember someone  defected from the USSR with this plane and escaped to Japan.


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Jul 29, 2019)

Bugatti model 100

















An airforce veteran Scotty Wilson spent more than $400,000 and 10,000 man hours to build a replica of this beautiful aircraft. Unfortunately, he lost control of it on a test flight after the forward propeller lost power just after liftoff and died in the crash.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 29, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> Most comments I see of an F-117 on YouTube mock the plane for “stealth” and getting shot down by Slavs and the power of Hardbass or whatever.



The stealth wasn't the issue, it was the mission planners

That F-117 flew that exact same route for strikes for 3 weeks straight. All the SAM crew had to do to shoot it down was adjust bandwidth super low, and just hold scan over one specific area and shoot at the first thing that flew over it at a speed greater than that of a large bird. They had tried it a week earlier and missed because the launch command was given too late. The USAF misread the situation and just thought that it meant the stealth worked extra good and just told the fighter wing they didn't have to worry about it or fly evasively.

All in all it was the most Air Force fucking thing thats ever happened


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 29, 2019)




----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 29, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> The stealth wasn't the issue, it was the mission planners
> 
> That F-117 flew that exact same route for strikes for 3 weeks straight. All the SAM crew had to do to shoot it down was adjust bandwidth super low, and just hold scan over one specific area and shoot at the first thing that flew over it at a speed greater than that of a large bird. They had tried it a week earlier and missed because the launch command was given too late. The USAF misread the situation and just thought that it meant the stealth worked extra good and just told the fighter wing they didn't have to worry about it or fly evasively.
> 
> All in all it was the most Air Force fucking thing thats ever happened


I know that, but the YouTube comments on a F-117 video about bombing Baghdad  during Desert Storm literally had people saying Slav power and Cheeki Breeki, and even Stealth Jet cannot handle the power of the hardbass.


----------



## オウム (Jul 29, 2019)

Is this an autist thread or is this what 'Nam veterans talk about when they're not sharing stories about their LBFM conquests.? I only ask because whenever I see plane talk it triggers a memory of this autist I went to high school with who would only talk about airplanes.


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Jul 29, 2019)

オウム said:


> Is this an autist thread or is this what 'Nam veterans talk about when they're not sharing stories about their LBFM conquests.? I only ask because whenever I see plane talk it triggers a memory of this autist I went to high school with who would only talk about airplanes.



It’s all the brain damage we got as kids building model cars, planes, ships and tanks in our unventilated rooms with Testors glue.


----------



## オウム (Jul 29, 2019)

Mister Qwerty said:


> It’s all the brain damage we got as kids building model cars, planes, ships and tanks in our unventilated rooms with Testors glue.


I bought a model car to make with my dad - he never made it with me, a blessing in disguise it seems. I'll pray for you.


----------



## maalikthefakemuzzie (Jul 29, 2019)

Allow me to explain why chaff and flares will inevitably become obsolete. When missiles were first developed the software installed was 80s to 90s tier AI and they were made to attack the large hot exhaust of an aircraft since it was easy to program. As a result flares were made to fool the missile and they are currently quite effective. And currently defensive pilot tactics are 70% reliant on the fact the missiles launched will be defeated by flares. But right now AI imaging technology has improved to the point where you can use facial recognition on instagram. This technology can be easily transferred into the software of a missile. And from an intuitive perspective, if you see an aircraft dispensing flares and you have no problem with differentiating the magnesium fireball and the aircraft then neither will an advanced missile.

And as a matter of fact such a missile exists, it is called the AIM-9X


----------



## Sho'nuff (Jul 29, 2019)

RedRightHand said:


> Horten Ho 229 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The V22 had been pretty reliable as of the past 5 years or so.  She had all kinds of teething issues, seeing her get dropped by some branches.   

In Afghanistan, at least for our year push out there, the Osprey was by far the most reliable for us, we had numerous other platforms go down to environmental and occasional enemy action.  But the v22s kept on trucking with low downtime.  Granted, as a platform, it is also 20 to 30 years newer compared to the other helicopters we were using.


----------



## MAPK phosphatase (Jul 29, 2019)

Spunt said:


> The Lightning had glide characteristics in the same way that zero is technically a number.


This would be better worded as.
"The Lightning had a number of glide characteristics in the way that zero is a number."
As you have it I was confused. I read is like you were saying zero isn't a full fledged number compared to other numbers.


----------



## 1Tonka_Truck (Jul 29, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> The stealth wasn't the issue, it was the mission planners
> 
> That F-117 flew that exact same route for strikes for 3 weeks straight. All the SAM crew had to do to shoot it down was adjust bandwidth super low, and just hold scan over one specific area and shoot at the first thing that flew over it at a speed greater than that of a large bird. They had tried it a week earlier and missed because the launch command was given too late. The USAF misread the situation and just thought that it meant the stealth worked extra good and just told the fighter wing they didn't have to worry about it or fly evasively.
> 
> All in all it was the most Air Force fucking thing thats ever happened


Wasn't it also the first flight to not have EA-6 support?



MAPK phosphatase said:


> This would be better worded as.
> "The Lightning had a number of glide characteristics in the way that zero is a number."
> As you have it I was confused. I read is like you were saying zero isn't a full fledged number compared to other numbers.


@Spunt's point was that the Lightning had a glide slope of basically zero which is a conceptual number since you can't count to zero.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 29, 2019)

Sho'nuff said:


> The V22 had been pretty reliable as of the past 5 years or so.  She had all kinds of teething issues, seeing her get dropped by some branches.
> 
> In Afghanistan, at least for our year push out there, the Osprey was by far the most reliable for us, we had numerous other platforms go down to environmental and occasional enemy action.  But the v22s kept on trucking with low downtime.  Granted, as a platform, it is also 20 to 30 years newer compared to the other helicopters we were using.



Yeah,  the osprey also gets punts just for retiring the fucking Phrog. The 46 was the worst fucking airframe in the corps. Which honestly says a whole lot


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 30, 2019)

I think the CL-1200 would've been a great fighter jet if it was produced.


----------



## Sho'nuff (Jul 30, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> Yeah,  the osprey also gets punts just for retiring the fucking Phrog. The 46 was the worst fucking airframe in the corps. Which honestly says a whole lot



Ughh... 
The 46.
We would send those out to help recover other downed 46, and they would go down...  happened more than once.  Got to the point where we would send ground crews out to recover and just blow the downed 46 to crap instead of recovering the air frame.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 30, 2019)

Sho'nuff said:


> Ughh...
> The 46.
> We would send those out to help recover other downed 46, and they would go down...  happened more than once.  Got to the point where we would send ground crews out to recover and just blow the downed 46 to crap instead of recovering the air frame.



My kid brother spent an extra week in Iraq helping clean out their FOB because if he waited he could ride back out to the LHA on one of his squadron's 53's instead of their sister's 46s. It was a wise choice


----------



## The Un-Clit (Jul 30, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> The Su15 wasn't exported for fear of falling in to American hands. They knew it was a terrible intercepter and feared that the US learning that the most numerous bomber killer was a paper tiger would lead to American aggression. It was wildy unreliable, had terrible flight characteristics, couldn't fly for long at any real speed or altitude and the onboard radar was terrible. The MiG25 was ordered to help bolster the defensive capabilities, but when Belenko defected we learned the 25 was an absolute shit heap as well



Yes, wasn't the MiG25 supposed to leverage what the Russians had stolen from the superb Avro Arrow in terms of titanium construction and engine improvements from the never finished Iriquois?  If so they didn't learn sweet fuck all from the Arrow program no matter how many spies had supposedly infilitrated it. Other then a vague similarity in airframe, it was a literal paper airplane. if you flew it in anything but a streight line it wouldn't go anywhere near it's rated speed, and had a miles-per-gallon ratio worse then a top fuel dragster.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 30, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> View attachment 865227



Alright. Why ain't y'all mother fuckers laughing at Brrrrrrttttt and Ernie?


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 31, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> View attachment 865227


The Northrop YA-9 was better. YA-9 was more fuel efficient because of its geared turbofan engine.


----------



## XYZpdq (Jul 31, 2019)

I like the movie Starfighters


Spoiler: a movie about very little


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 31, 2019)

XYZpdq said:


> I like the movie Starfighters
> 
> 
> Spoiler: a movie about very little


The F-104 was a beauty. A deadly one, but a beauty none the less.


----------



## BScCollateral (Jul 31, 2019)

The Un-Clit said:


> If so they didn't learn sweet fuck all from the Arrow program no matter how many spies had supposedly infilitrated it.



My understanding is that the MiG-25 was built to shoot down the Valkyrie. It would be interesting to see how well it could have performed its designed mission.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 31, 2019)

BScCollateral said:


> My understanding is that the MiG-25 was built to shoot down the Valkyrie. It would be interesting to see how well it could have performed its designed mission.



It was, but it was done by taking a ton of hijacked info from the Arrow program and a (hilariously inept) West German company's attempt to make a low cost personal computer for a radar/fire control system


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Aug 2, 2019)

Northrop YA-9 > Fairchild A-10


----------



## TiggerNits (Aug 2, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> Northrop YA-9 > Fairchild A-10



Nah, it wouldn;t be able to carry the same payload or be nearly as durable against ground fire. Plus the biggest strike against it was the fact that IR seeking missiles would have probably removed the tail section in most shots, while the A-10 had the placed in a good spot to only suffer one engine lost and still maintain rudder and elevator authority. In reality it was just a less well thought out Su-25.

That said, the A-10 is a boondoggle now and doesn't do anything better than a modern attack chopper, a hellfire equipped drone or a modern strike fighterlike the Rhino, Strike Eagle or even a late block Viper. It only exists because of a few members of congress not wanting to piss off grunts who have never understood the importance of speed in coming on to station with CAS. The 30mm gun is cool and all, but modern tanks can't really be damaged by the thing outside of a low chance detread. The hog is also less survivable now thanks to the fact that any enemy that can realisticlly contest their own airspace will be more than properly equipped to down them with MANPADS, much less proper SAMs and AAA


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Aug 2, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> Nah, it wouldn;t be able to carry the same payload or be nearly as durable against ground fire. Plus the biggest strike against it was the fact that IR seeking missiles would have probably removed the tail section in most shots, while the A-10 had the placed in a good spot to only suffer one engine lost and still maintain rudder and elevator authority. In reality it was just a less well thought out Su-25.
> 
> That said, the A-10 is a boondoggle now and doesn't do anything better than a modern attack chopper, a hellfire equipped drone or a modern strike fighterlike the Rhino, Strike Eagle or even a late block Viper. It only exists because of a few members of congress not wanting to piss off grunts who have never understood the importance of speed in coming on to station with CAS. The 30mm gun is cool and all, but modern tanks can't really be damaged by the thing outside of a low chance detread. The hog is also less survivable now thanks to the fact that any enemy that can realisticlly contest their own airspace will be more than properly equipped to down them with MANPADS, much less proper SAMs and AAA



Is it true that the real reason the airforce built the A-10 was to force the Army to scrap the Cheyenne?


----------



## TiggerNits (Aug 2, 2019)

Mister Qwerty said:


> Is it true that the real reason the airforce built the A-10 was to force the Army to scrap the Cheyenne?



And the Bronco, the Mohawk and the gunship CH-47s and gunship/fire support UH-60s. Thats where the budget came from and why the "OA-10" exists (its just an A-10 where the pilot is a certified JTAC/FAC)

The Air Force is really good at budget games. When they build an airbase, the never build airfield first, they waste the entire budget on hangars, comms, housing, etc and then go to Congress and say "We need more cash to build the runways, but everything else is there"


----------



## Uranus Pink (Aug 3, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> That said, the A-10 is a boondoggle now and doesn't do anything better than a modern attack chopper, a hellfire equipped drone or a modern strike fighterlike the Rhino, Strike Eagle or even a late block Viper.


Attack choppers still do not have the payload, durability, range and speed to be equal to the A-10 or SU-25. Current drones at the moment do not have the payload capability to replace the A-10.  



> It only exists because of a few members of congress not wanting to piss off grunts who have never understood the importance of speed in coming on to station with CAS.


Speed is no good if the fast zoomer can not stay in the area for more than a few minutes.



> The 30mm gun is cool and all, but modern tanks can't really be damaged by the thing outside of a low chance detread.


The 30mm gun always been for soft skins and light armor not heavy armor like medium tanks, heavy tanks, and MBTs.  A-10 carried ATGMs, conventional bombs, JDAMs and rockets for tanks.



> The hog is also less survivable now thanks to the fact that any enemy that can realisticlly contest their own airspace will be more than properly equipped to down them with MANPADS, much less proper SAMs and AAA


If A-10s are being continuously shot at with anything bigger then MANPADs or heavy autocannons the air compaign has already gone pear shape as SEAD was never one of the A-10 missions nor was it built or refitted for it.


----------



## TiggerNits (Aug 3, 2019)

Im not saying the A10 isn't cool,  I'm saying it's just not practical anymore. Just like the Harrier,  which I've actually got some experience with. 

Cold war CAS requirements aren't optimal anymore, sure the avionics upgrades are definitely an improvement,  and the A10s loiter is seriously fucking impressive,  but it's still not as precise in a way that offers a significant advantage over the incredibly stable platform that is a modern attack helo with its front seater aiming,  lasing and sharing target data in real time with ABIT and other datalink shit while someone else flies the bird.  

The same can be said of the hogs ability when directly compared to a faster 2 seat platform like the strike eagle or the super hornet.  Hell, there were a decent amount of early A10 guys who were vocal as shit about the A10 not offering any actual advantage over the Korean and Vietnam era Sandy other than price tag.

All that said, the A10 is still useful in low intensity conflict mostly thanks to how incredibly good the pilot training is, because those drivers are a very dedicated bunch and i won't say a bad word about them even though i think their platform is at the point of diminishing returns.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Aug 3, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> Im not saying the A10 isn't cool,  I'm saying it's just not practical anymore. Just like the Harrier,  which I've actually got some experience with.
> 
> Cold war CAS requirements aren't optimal anymore, sure the avionics upgrades are definitely an improvement,  and the A10s loiter is seriously fucking impressive,  but it's still not as precise in a way that offers a significant advantage over the incredibly stable platform that is a modern attack helo with its front seater aiming,  lasing and sharing target data in real time with ABIT and other datalink shit while someone else flies the bird.
> 
> ...


I think we need to bring back the A-1 Skyraider.


----------



## TiggerNits (Aug 3, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> I think we need to bring back the A-1 Skyraider.











						Light-attack experiment pits AT-6 against A-29 in high-stakes matchup
					

Textron and the Sierra Nevada Corp.-Embraer team can expect a fast-paced couple of months at Holloman Air Force Base.




					www.defensenews.com
				



So do some other folks


----------



## Anonymous For This (Aug 3, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> Light-attack experiment pits AT-6 against A-29 in high-stakes matchup
> 
> 
> Textron and the Sierra Nevada Corp.-Embraer team can expect a fast-paced couple of months at Holloman Air Force Base.
> ...



With all of the programs looking at turboprop CAS planes the Air Force has been doing, the dipshit in me wishes they would just stuff a turboprop and modern avionics into a P-47 Thunderbolt or F4U Corsair.  I know that isn't feasible, but seeing an F4U straf ISIS fuckheads in 2019 is one of the most American things I can think of.


----------



## TiggerNits (Aug 3, 2019)

Anonymous For This said:


> With all of the programs looking at turboprop CAS planes the Air Force has been doing, the dipshit in me wishes they would just stuff a turboprop and modern avionics into a P-47 Thunderbolt or F4U Corsair.  I know that isn't feasible, but seeing an F4U straf ISIS fuckheads in 2019 is one of the most American things I can think of.



Someone awhile back did this with a P-51, it was bitchin









						Piper PA-48 Enforcer - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## The best and greatest (Aug 3, 2019)

maaliktheprisonguard said:


> Allow me to explain why chaff and flares will inevitably become obsolete. When missiles were first developed the software installed was 80s to 90s tier AI and they were made to attack the large hot exhaust of an aircraft since it was easy to program. As a result flares were made to fool the missile and they are currently quite effective. And currently defensive pilot tactics are 70% reliant on the fact the missiles launched will be defeated by flares. But right now AI imaging technology has improved to the point where you can use facial recognition on instagram. This technology can be easily transferred into the software of a missile. And from an intuitive perspective, if you see an aircraft dispensing flares and you have no problem with differentiating the magnesium fireball and the aircraft then neither will an advanced missile.
> 
> And as a matter of fact such a missile exists, it is called the AIM-9X



So whats the next logical step forward? Missile intercepting systems? EM weapons that screw with the targeting?


----------



## TiggerNits (Aug 3, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> So whats the next logical step forward? Missile intercepting systems? EM weapons that screw with the targeting?



Buddy drones that deploy to act as missile kill vehicles seem to be what most guys still flying are predicting


----------



## The best and greatest (Aug 3, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> Buddy drones that deploy to act as missile kill vehicles seem to be what most guys still flying are predicting


Makes sense.


----------



## LyapunovCriterion (Aug 3, 2019)

Get on my level, plebs.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Aug 3, 2019)

LyapunovCriterion said:


> Get on my level, plebs.
> View attachment 874011


The Germans do have weird planes.


----------



## LyapunovCriterion (Aug 3, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> The Germans do have weird planes.


I tried landing it on a carrier using keyboard and mouse, didn't work out.








						Heinkel Lerche landing on a carrier
					

Heinkel Lerche landing on a carrier




					www.youtube.com


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Aug 3, 2019)

LyapunovCriterion said:


> I tried landing it on a carrier using keyboard and mouse, didn't work out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


B+ for effort man.




These things were supposed to compete with the F-16’s.


----------



## LyapunovCriterion (Aug 3, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> B+ for effort man.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It could land like an helicopter, if further developed it could prove rather versatile.
>tfw you'll never see dogfights between Heinkel Larche Mk IVs and F-20s in US airspace


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Aug 3, 2019)

LyapunovCriterion said:


> It could land like an helicopter, if further developed it could prove rather versatile.
> >tfw you'll never see dogfights between Heinkel Larche Mk IVs and F-20s in US airspace


Pretty sure the F-20 can take on the MK IVs any day.


----------



## TiggerNits (Aug 3, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> B+ for effort man.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Only for export sales because the DoD was extremely against selling the F16 to anyone but NATO members and Israel but once Congress approved selling it with a downgraded radar and a few small changes to avionics the F20 was doomed because the F16 was now slightly cheaper to operate


----------



## Nurse Ratchet (Aug 3, 2019)

(I have this really strange habit of calling all airplanes "Cessnas", & occasionally "a 747". And @flossman, a hardcore aircraft enthusi-autist, really wants to stab me in the face through the internet whenever I do this. It drives him batshit insane. Apologies in advance.)

@The_wandering_nibler, layman question about the red Nazi one, what's the purpose of the little cross outline symbol?

Anyway, nice Cessnas, guys.


----------



## Anonymous For This (Aug 3, 2019)

The best and greatest said:


> So whats the next logical step forward? Missile intercepting systems? EM weapons that screw with the targeting?



I thought the old Tomcats had some sort of camera that could detect and track other aircraft.  Was that a thing or am I just senile?


----------



## Slap47 (Aug 3, 2019)

Gustav Schuchardt said:


> The F-35 gets a lot of shit but it changes the strategic balance between the US and China.



What exactly is the balance between a country with 0 aircraft carriers and one with like 9 super carriers?


----------



## TiggerNits (Aug 3, 2019)

Anonymous For This said:


> I thought the old Tomcats had some sort of camera that could detect and track other aircraft.  Was that a thing or am I just senile?



Yeah, it was mounted on the chin, the RIO could slave it to radar and make it easy to visually ID targets long before they were in visual range


----------



## Gustav Schuchardt (Aug 3, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> What exactly is the balance between a country with 0 aircraft carriers and one with like 9 super carriers?



China has two carriers, one active and one undergoing sea trials and expected to be fully active in 2019. They'll have one more launched in 2020 and fully active in 2023. So three carriers by 2023.






						Chinese aircraft carrier programme - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The US has 11 CATOBAR carriers and one America class LHA with 11 planned.









						Aircraft carrier - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




So you could say without the F-35 the ration in 2023 would be 11:3. With the F-35 the ratio is 12:3. However with the full fleet of LHA ships the ratio would be 22:however many carriers China has by then.

Actually even without the US LHAs there are going to be Australian and Japanese STOVL carriers. 

Ships aren't the only important thing though - the F-35B can take off from a lot more places than a non STOVL jet. Taiwan and Japan have both expressed interest in it for just this reason - in a war with China both worry about Chinese ballistic missile attacks on their airstrips grounding their airforce.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Aug 3, 2019)

F-111. Why?


----------



## Uranus Pink (Aug 4, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> I think we need to bring back the A-1 Skyraider.


And that would be a major downgrade and other turboprop proposals from the A-10. A-10 made built upon the experience learned from the Ilyushin Il-2, Henschel Hs 129 and Skyraider. 

Plus politically they're a poison FU pill to the U.S. Army. Offer up a plane with little or no survivability in a CAS environment. So it will have to operate at higher and higher attitude where it can't actually do CAS and is redundant as any F-35, F-15 or drone can carry a bomb and drop it. 

U.S. Army back in 2003/4 during the invasion tried to use AH-64s like the A-10 and all they got was a few dozen Apaches completely shot up and were lucky none of crews were killed or seriously injured. Attack helos are still too fragile, slow, and lightly armed compared to their non-rotor flying brethren.


----------



## millais (Aug 4, 2019)

Nurse Ratchet said:


> (I have this really strange habit of calling all airplanes "Cessnas", & occasionally "a 747". And @flossman, a hardcore aircraft enthusi-autist, really wants to stab me in the face through the internet whenever I do this. It drives him batshit insane. Apologies in advance.)
> 
> @The_wandering_nibler, layman question about the red Nazi one, what's the purpose of the little cross outline symbol?
> 
> Anyway, nice Cessnas, guys.


The Balkenkreuz cross was just an all-purpose German national insignia applied to aircraft and vehicles to avoid misidentification and friendly fire.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Aug 4, 2019)




----------



## 1Tonka_Truck (Aug 4, 2019)

Mister Qwerty said:


> Is it true that the real reason the airforce built the A-10 was to force the Army to scrap the Cheyenne?


The AH-64 was what scared the chair force into actually building the A-10.



Uranus Pink said:


> Plus politically they're a poison FU pill to the U.S. Army. Offer up a plane with little or no survivability in a CAS environment. So it will have to operate at higher and higher attitude where it can't actually do CAS and is redundant as any F-35, F-15 or drone can carry a bomb and drop it.


SOCOM has wanted a turboprop CAS for a long time. They want a high time on target, high loiter time, low cost platform for highly permissible environments. We've been wearing out high cost airframes running sorties in areas where the largest AA threat is a DShk.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 6, 2019)

This is quite an interesting plane & only 3 of these Horten HO 229's were built by the Nazi's towards the end of WW2. It was supposedly the first jet propelled flying wing aircraft.  I think just one is still in existence & is undergoing restoration at the Smithsonian. 

Smithsonian HO229 article





What remains of the last Horten.






> In 1943, Luftwaffe chief Herman Goering laid out the so-called 3x1000 specification for a plane that could fly one thousand kilometers an hour carrying one thousand kilograms of bombs with fuel enough to travel one thousand kilometers and back—while still retaining a third of the fuel supply for use in combat. Such an airplane could strike targets in Britain while outrunning any fighters sent to intercept it.



https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/nazi-germanys-stealth-fighter-story-ho-229-30932

Obviously not a real pic but there are hardly any photos of this plane online.


----------



## TiggerNits (Aug 7, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> This is quite an interesting plane & only 3 of these Horten HO 229's were built by the Nazi's towards the end of WW2. It was supposedly the first jet propelled flying wing aircraft.  I think just one is still in existence & is undergoing restoration at the Smithsonian.
> 
> Smithsonian HO229 article
> 
> ...



Some people really let Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe completely shape their concept about WW2

This is in response to that national interest article, not your post, sorry


----------



## TiggerNits (Aug 8, 2019)

My nephew just got me to play War Thunder with him a bit this weekend and now I'm constantly thinking about the F6F Hellcat, my absolute favorite prop job. 





This girl was the primary Ace Maker (at an impressive 305) of WW2 for the United States. With over 5200 kills and a reported 19.1:1 kill ratio against the Japanese, this thing may not be as iconic as the F4U Corsair, but it certainly burdened a bigger load and proved easier to fly, fight and land. Sure, it benefited from being the primary fighter against the Japanese in the marianas Turkey Shoot, where inexperienced Japanese Zero pilots in large numbers were annihilated by better trained, equipped and more aggressive American pilots with much more combat experience, but it's still hard to argue with the fact that no other allied aircraft managed anything close to the same kill ratios enjoyed by F6F pilots





The Hellcat could outperform almost every single Japanese plane in top speed, stability and overall acceleration, making it the ultimate choice for Zoom and Boom tactics outside of the P-38, which also did amazing against the Japanese in WW2. The Hell cat could outturn the Zero above 250mph, but when it got slow, the lighter Japanese fighters became a real threat, so American pilots learned to never come off the throttle and never engage past 3/4ths of a turn against Japanese fighters, it was better to make a pass, accelerate through it and come back around in the vertical while your wingmen would circle over head to wait for an opening to make theirs. This became known as the Wheel of Death and the meat Grinder, where American pilots would stack their Hellcats a few thousand feet above the enemy and descend in groups of 2 to destroy flights of Japanese aircraft.





If the F4U was "whistling death" for the Japanese pilots, the Hellcat was certainly "inevitable defeat" as the unending swarms of Hellcats would continuously and relentlessly destroy enemy fighters and bombers en masse for the duration of the war. In 1944 the US Navy introduced a radar equipped version that would harass and destroy any attempts for the Japanese forces to hide at night in hopes of resupply, with several F6F-5N crews becoming aces as well. 





Marines flying off carriers also used the Hellcat with great success as a strike and CAS platform as well as a fighter, providing support for marine landings at Tarawa, Okinawa, Iwo Jima and Saipan to defeat Japanese troops in contact with US ground forces. It could carry bombs, rockets and even the first US "Bunker Buster" the Tiny Tim, a massive rocket for the age that packed more punch than any other rocket int he US inventory. While designed initially for anti-shipping and use by the B-25 and SBC Helldiver, the Hellcat and Corsair used them to great effect destroying Japanese defenses and shipping during the Siege of Okinawa, with the rocket being so powerful that a few planes firing them were damaged by the blast of the rocket motor.

So while the venerable Corsair was immortalized by the exploits of Pappy Boyington and his VMA-214 squadron mates, the face of Air Supremeacy in the Pacific looks different than some would assume


----------



## Anonymous For This (Aug 8, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> My nephew just got me to play War Thunder with him a bit this weekend and now I'm constantly thinking about the F6F Hellcat, my absolute favorite prop job.
> 
> View attachment 881259
> 
> ...



If you haven't already read it, I recommend Samurai! by Saburo Sakai.  He was the leading (surviving) Japanese ace of the war.  He goes into great detail about how many pants were shit when the Hellcat became the primary adversary of the Zero.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Aug 9, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> My nephew just got me to play War Thunder with him a bit this weekend and now I'm constantly thinking about the F6F Hellcat, my absolute favorite prop job.
> 
> View attachment 881259
> 
> ...


They don’t make planes like these anymore do they?


----------



## TiggerNits (Aug 9, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> They don’t make planes like these anymore do they?


Nope. Props are a death sentence on a fighter these days


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Aug 9, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> Nope. Props are a death sentence on a fighter these days


Well maybe an attack plane, but you’re right about fighters.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Aug 12, 2019)

Opinion on this bad boy?


----------



## The Dude (Aug 12, 2019)

A list of my favorite military planes:

WWII Era:
P-61 Black Widow
P-38 Lightning
P-47 Thunderbolt
A-26 Invader 
F4U Corsair
F6F Hellcat
XP-67 Bat

Cold War Era:
F-4 Phantom
A-26 Invader (they were used in Vietnam)
AC-119 Shadow/Stinger
C-124 Globemaster II
F-106 Delta Dart
B-36 Peacemaker
B-58 Hustler
SR-71 Blackbird
XB-70 Valkyrie 
Lockheed YF-12
Northrop YB-49

Late-ColdWar to Now
F-14 Tomcat
F-15 Eagle
YF-23 Black Widow II (should have been picked over the F-22 IMHO)
B-1B Lancer
B-2 Spirit
B-52 Stratofortress
Su-57/PAK FA


----------



## TiggerNits (Aug 12, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> Opinion on this bad boy?
> View attachment 887174



The Spad owns in every way shape and form. A friend of the family flew them in Vietnam and then moved over to Huey's and Cobras before retiring and said when he dies he wants to be buried in his old Spad squadron jacket with a control stick in his hand because thats how he wants the almighty to see him before casting judgements



The Dude said:


> A list of my favorite military planes:



Thats a fun idea

WW2 

F6F (Posted about this earlier)
F4F (Gotta respect the legacy)
P40 (The sexiest prop job ever built)
B24 (My grandpa's old ride)
C46 (Looks way cooler than a trampy DC-3)
*
Cold War (Built after 46 and lacks fly-by-wire)*
F-8 Crusader (Always love planes that naturaly have the "Shark Mouth" aesthetic, even without the paint)
F-4 Phantom (Every F4 pilot I know that wasn't also a Spad guy claims it was their favorite thing to fly)
A-1 Sky Raider "Spad" (The last true mud mover)
A-4 Skyhawk "Scooter" (My dad's old ride)
A-7 Corsair (The best possible jet powered follow up to the Spad)
SR-71 Blackbird (Too cool)
B-58 Hustler (It's the Bone's grandpa!
F9F Panther (60% of the time, it works everytime)
F-14 Tomcat (It's a third gen fighter, deal with it)
MiG-21 Fishbed (An AK-47 with wings. Its not elegant or particularly innovative, but it will always work in either design or sheer numbers)
MiG-15 Fagot (lol) 

*Modern era*
The entire Hornet family is really good. Sure the Super Hornet isn't as fast or as long legged as the tomcat, but holy shit is it reliable, efficient and easy to handle. They're flying Leatherman's tools, they're just always useful to have, even if it's just a stable buddy tanker that carries its own missiles. The greatest tragedy of my life was never getting assigned to them
F-22 Raptor (because it's the only 5th gen thats proven to be superior to its 4th gen predecessor)
F-16 Viper (If the Hornet is a leatherman, than the viper is the swiss army knife. Both are great, neither is much better than the other over all, but one is always situationally preferable to the other)
MiG-29 Fulcrum (Looks cool)
B-1B Lancer (The Bone if you're cool. It is the loudest fucking thing with wings when it flies overhead and holy shit watching them fly CAS on the range is life changing)
F-15, but mostly the E (The only bomber that can murder 90% of an enemy's air force in the air, too)
Su-34 Fullback (The only strike fighter with a bathroom)

*
*


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Aug 12, 2019)




----------



## Cedric_Eff (Aug 14, 2019)

Weirdest looking tanker.


----------



## The Dude (Aug 14, 2019)

One of my all-time favorite planes is the Douglas A-26 Invader. It's a twin-engine ground attack and light bomber that entered service in WWII and was still kicking major ass during the Vietnam conflict. They had a shit ton of guns, carried a heavy ordnance load for their size, and were even refurbished for Vietnam with stronger wings, under-wing hard points for rockets and gun pods, and wingtip fuel tanks (B-26K/A-26A)

I live about 45mins away from Hill Air Force Base, and they've got a really excellent air museum that has an A-26 painted all black with red accents. It's a gorgeous bird. Next time I'm up there I'll snap some photos to share.

Edit: Here are a few photos of the A-26 that I pulled off the interwebz, along with a couple other planes.

The first photo is the A-26 at Hill AFB, but it isn't a photo that I took.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Aug 16, 2019)

Lol


----------



## TiggerNits (Aug 17, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> Lol
> View attachment 894531


I can see right through that faggot


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Aug 17, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> I can see right through that faggot


Can’t believe that this was one of the best fighter jets ever.


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Aug 17, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> F-8 Crusader (Always love planes that naturaly have the "Shark Mouth" aesthetic, even without the paint)


The best modern fighter aircraft produced by the Great Satan, despite being a big ol' thing almost as chubby as the F-4.


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Sep 2, 2019)




----------



## ZooSmell (Sep 4, 2019)

The Sukhoi Su-37






NATO reporting name: Flanker-F
Russian Codename: Terminator \m/

The Su-37 was a one-off air superiority fighter. The single example built was used as a technology demonstrator by Russia to show off their advancements in aerial supermobility and agility.

In late 1983 the Soviet government commissioned the Sukhoi Design Bureau to start development of a Su-27 upgrade known now as the Su-27M. As part of this development, Sukhoi also began extensive research on thrust vectoring.

By 1988 the Su-27Ms had began test flights. The results yielded that ineffective flight control surfaces on the aircraft made it difficult for pilots to keep it under control at high angles of attack. 

The newly developed axisymmetrical vectoring nozzles were fitted onto an old Su-27 test bed, along with AL-37FU engines. Additionally, what was then state-of-the-art digital fly-by-wire avionics were installed that directly linked to the thrust vectoring. And so, the Su-30 was created. 

It was only a one-off project and was used by Russia at various airshows in the 90's to show off its abilities. In 2002 it crashed after the near 15 something year old thrust canards and thrust nozzles failed from years of testing and use. That was prettt much the end of the Su-30. Russia continued on with fighter jet advancements as did the rest of the world.


----------



## millais (Sep 4, 2019)

I remember seeing the Horten Ho 229 fuselage section at the Smithsonian's Air & Space annex in Virginia. Even accounting for the incomplete nature of the fuselage, it was much smaller to see in person than I had imagined.

Typically when I finally have the chance to see the vintage aircraft in person, I am impressed by how much bigger they are in real life  compared to how they look in the photos or flight sims, but that 229 was one of the few exceptions.

The other incomplete aircraft that they had there that seemed surprisingly small was the He 219 "Uhu" nightfighter.

I wish I had had a full day to look at everything there in detail. The one part of their collection that I unfortunately had zero chance to look at was their big wall display of fixed mount aerial MGs and automatic cannon. They are supposed to have all the WW2 and Cold War aircraft guns that reached mass production for each country, so I was especially curious to see the automatic cannons, since most museums only have examples of rifle-caliber aircraft MGs on display. Probably the only place in America where you can see things like a 20mm Hispano-Suiza or a 30mm MK 103 outside of private collections.


----------



## OjSimpsonFan21 (Sep 4, 2019)

>No MiG or other Union planes
>No eurofag planes
>No KC-135

This poll is a yikes


----------



## TiggerNits (Sep 5, 2019)

duff101 said:


> >No MiG or other Union planes
> >No eurofag planes
> >No KC-135
> 
> This poll is a yikes


----------



## OjSimpsonFan21 (Sep 5, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> View attachment 924045


Where’s my KC-135?


----------



## TiggerNits (Sep 5, 2019)

duff101 said:


> Where’s my KC-135?


Refueling the eagle, i guess


----------



## Webby's Boyfriend (Sep 20, 2019)

I'm a fan of aviation, especially WWI&II fighter planes. Does somebody know good books on these topics?


----------



## TiggerNits (Sep 20, 2019)

Webby's Boyfriend said:


> I'm a fan of aviation, especially WWI&II fighter planes. Does somebody know good books on these topics?



Lords of the Sky by Dan Hampton is a good start. It's a great book until Vietnam, but completely glosses over Naval Aviation. Because Dan Hampton was an Air Force Wild Weasel pilot who probably got cucked by a Navy F-4 pilot at some point


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Sep 20, 2019)

Webby's Boyfriend said:


> I'm a fan of aviation, especially WWI&II fighter planes. Does somebody know good books on these topics?


*Duels in the Sky:* World War II Naval Aircraft in Combat by Eric "Winkle" Brown. Evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of World War II aircraft and matches Allied and Axis fighter planes in theoretical combat. Brown flew all aircraft mentioned in the book.


----------



## BScCollateral (Sep 21, 2019)

_Full Circle _by RAF WWII veteran J.E. 'Johnnie' Johnson. He states that many lessons on air combat were forgotten between World War I and II, and my impression is he wrote this to protect against that.


----------



## millais (Sep 22, 2019)

Webby's Boyfriend said:


> I'm a fan of aviation, especially WWI&II fighter planes. Does somebody know good books on these topics?


The Osprey Books publishers have put out a lot of good primers on the iconic models of WWI and WWII aircraft and their most famous pilots. They have a seemingly endless number of series on the topics, each with many volumes on different aircrafts, units, or pilots: "Aircraft of the Aces", "Duel", "Aviation Elite Units", "Combat Aircraft", etc.

For more detailed coverage of the pilots' experience, you cannot beat the old memoirs. For WWI, one of the more interesting ones I read was that of Julius Buckler, famously the only German pilot to get the Wound Badge in Gold (ie get seriously wounded on 3x separate occasions, a cumulative feat that is generally considered a death sentence for pilots in the pre-parachute era). He wrote about his war experience all the way from pre-war infantry training, to his infantry combat experience as a lowly grunt, to flying school, air combat, and finally commanding an entire Jasta and how they handled the demobilization after the armistice.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Sep 22, 2019)

Any opinions on the F-16XL?


----------



## Gustav Schuchardt (Oct 15, 2019)

Any opinions on the F-16Vs Trump sold Taiwan?

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/08/16/trump-oks-f-16-sale-to-taiwan-amid-china-tensions/


----------



## TiggerNits (Oct 15, 2019)

Cedric_Eff said:


> Any opinions on the F-16XL?



It was a NASA prototype, it didn't change how planes were designed and the F-16 remained with different changes for decades after.

It was a waste of money, but it looked pretty cool.



Gustav Schuchardt said:


> Any opinions on the F-16Vs Trump sold Taiwan?
> 
> https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/08/16/trump-oks-f-16-sale-to-taiwan-amid-china-tensions/



Good bomber and strike aircraft interceptor. Solid interdiction, SEAD and anti-ship platform. With newer 9X's and 120's it should do fine against any Chinese threat thanks to having pretty good radar capability, but not much of a dogfighter without the 9X because it's a bit heavy for a viper. I actually have 3 friends who are viper guys right now, one who had to go to a NATO ally recently and help train pilots in the newer F-16s and his take away is "Every pound you put on the viper makes it exponentially worse in a dogfight but a lot better in almost every other aspect."

The F-16, especially as it evolves, has become a jack of all trades at a reasonable cost. Its not the best at anything anymore, but it can do almost every job in an above average way


----------



## Uranus Pink (Oct 15, 2019)

F-16XL was donated to NASA after it lost to the F-15E in the USAF Advanced Tactical Fighter Program.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article1.html


----------



## TiggerNits (Oct 16, 2019)

Uranus Pink said:


> F-16XL was donated to NASA after it lost to the F-15E in the USAF Advanced Tactical Fighter Program.
> http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article1.html



Thats actually cool. All I ever saw on the XL was the NASA testing, which I was told never led to anything to be discovered that hadn't already been seen in other 4th gen deltas. As a strike aircraft it makes a lot more sense


----------



## Uranus Pink (Oct 16, 2019)

TiggerNits said:


> Thats actually cool. All I ever saw on the XL was the NASA testing, which I was told never led to anything to be discovered that hadn't already been seen in other 4th gen deltas. As a strike aircraft it makes a lot more sense


Only flaw the F-16XL had it was using a 30mm cannon (30×173 mm) which cause serious cracking along the wing root. Swiping it out for the smaller 30mm cannon (30x113 mm) or forgoing 30mm altogether for the 20mm M61 Vulcan that is on almost everything USAF, USN and USMC would have been better. XL came out six years too early as with Desert Storm and onward F-16 been used as bombtrucks.

F-16XL if anything should have been put in service ala F-5 Freedom Fighter long enough for evaluation for problems to be found and fixed. Once that is done have it put up for the international market for those looking to upgrade their existing F-16 fleet and/or new builds for those wanting a multirole single engine strike fighter.

Other experimentals which were only for research purposes Grumman X-29 https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/x29

F-15 ACTIVE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_STOL/MTD


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Nov 8, 2019)

CF-100 "lead sled", Bomarc missile, and F-102 Delta Dagger


----------



## The Sauce Boss (Nov 8, 2019)

The P-61 Black Widow is one of my favorite planes of all time. Even have a model one I built as a kid.


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Nov 9, 2019)




----------



## Uranus Pink (Nov 9, 2019)

What aircraft are those?


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Nov 22, 2019)




----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jan 22, 2020)

Nyoom


----------



## TiggerNits (Jan 22, 2020)

Cedric_Eff said:


> Nyoom
> View attachment 1109456



Someone n Russia's parents must have bought them the GI Joe space shuttle


----------



## MCLOS Horthy (Jan 22, 2020)

Cedric_Eff said:


> Nyoom
> View attachment 1109456



Wouldn't those vortex generators be perpendicular to the air flow with the wings extended?


----------



## BONE_Buddy (Jan 22, 2020)

Oh boy! I didn't know this thread existed! 

Let me read up on it and....


Kamov Ka-52 said:


> Variable geometry is a meme ~snip~


*REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE**EEEEEEEEEEEE**EEEEEEEEEEEEEE**EEEEEEEEEEEE**EEEEEEEEEEE**EEEEEEEEE**EEEEEEEEE!*

I mean in all actuality I do agree with you. Anymore Variable Geometry _is_ a maintenance sink and a reliability pitfall. 

_However, _as previously mentioned, there is a reason for it existing in the first place:

Many years ago, back before this new fangled technology called "fly-by-Wire" came along, if you designed a plane for high speeds (as was the trend at the time), it would be unstable at lower speeds (as in landing speeds). 

This became a real problem as these fancy new jets (many times piloted by very experienced aviators), were losing control in take-offs, landings, and other low speed maneuvers.

The problems was _so_ great, that a solution had to be found. One of the better solutions to come out of years of research was to simply make it to where the pilot could "tune" the airframe to be more stable at their various operating speeds.

And that was how the Variable-Sweep Wing was born. Move the wings forward when slow, move the wings back when going balls to the wall.

It was the best solution at the time, and most new aircraft being designed at the time had at least a "B-Type" design which included the feature.

Then a few short years later Fly-By-Wire came into existence. It solved the stability issue cheaply... by moving the responsibility of handling the issue over to the computer.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Jan 22, 2020)

BONE_Buddy said:


> Oh boy! I didn't know this thread existed!
> 
> Let me read up on it and....
> 
> ...


The operational benefits were irrelevant because they were all hangar queens.


----------



## RA-5C Vigilante (Jan 22, 2020)

Kamov Ka-52 said:


> The operational benefits were irrelevant because they were all hangar queens.


STOP HURTING HIS FEELINGS HE'S A GOOD B-1 HE DINDU NUFFIN


----------



## BONE_Buddy (Jan 22, 2020)

Kamov Ka-52 said:


> The operational benefits were irrelevant because they were all hangar queens.


I feel personally attacked.

This is cyberbullying.

I am going to go to the internet police!


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Jan 22, 2020)

RA-5C Vigilante said:


> STOP HURTING HIS FEELINGS HE'S A GOOD B-1 HE DINDU NUFFIN





BONE_Buddy said:


> I feel personally attacked.
> 
> This is cyberbullying.
> 
> I am going to go to the internet police!



You both seem upset that my co-axial rotors are a battle proven technology instead of a gimmick and will likely be a prominent technology in the next procurement round of military helicopters.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jan 22, 2020)

TiggerNits said:


> Someone n Russia's parents must have bought them the GI Joe space shuttle
> 
> View attachment 1109785


That Russian plane I posted is the hypersonic Missile carrier, PAK-DA. Slap some rocket engines to it and it actually becomes an lifting body SSTO.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Jan 22, 2020)




----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jan 22, 2020)

Kamov Ka-52 said:


> View attachment 1110379


Wholesome


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Jan 22, 2020)




----------



## BONE_Buddy (Jan 22, 2020)

Kamov Ka-52 said:


> View attachment 1110499


By golly, I think I have the Yellow Fever!


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Jan 22, 2020)

BONE_Buddy said:


> By golly, I think I have the Yellow Fever!





What about half nips?


----------



## BONE_Buddy (Jan 22, 2020)

I see that, and I give a flying F-CK.




A flying AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, to be exact.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Jan 22, 2020)

BONE_Buddy said:


> By golly, I think I have the Yellow Fever!


Don't worry bro, anime has that covered.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jan 23, 2020)

A joke plane


----------



## Spunt (Jan 23, 2020)

Cedric_Eff said:


> A joke plane
> View attachment 1110995


Tell that to the various Argentine Skyhawk pilots who had to be fished out of the South Atlantic after these mofos pulled aerial handbrake turns with their thrust nozzles and blew them out of the sky.

The AV8-B, on the other hand...


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jan 23, 2020)

Spunt said:


> Tell that to the various Argentine Skyhawk pilots who had to be fished out of the South Atlantic after these mofos pulled aerial handbrake turns with their thrust nozzles and blew them out of the sky.
> 
> The AV8-B, on the other hand...


This too is an joke plane.




It was Lockheed’s idea of an upgraded F-104 with minor performance improvements and also having the same engines as the F-16.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jan 23, 2020)

Spunt said:


> Tell that to the various Argentine Skyhawk pilots who had to be fished out of the South Atlantic after these mofos pulled aerial handbrake turns with their thrust nozzles and blew them out of the sky.
> 
> The AV8-B, on the other hand...



I want to defend the harrier, because I actually have some hours in it, but jesus fucking christ does it break a lot and every maintenance officer that flies them goes full n manic-depressive. We should have just kept flying suped up A-4s instead. But the guys I know in the F35B say that they love the 35 for being what the harrier probably should have been.

Also, compared to the AV-8C the B was supposedly a thousand times better. Since they actually allowed nuggets in the B+ after more than a decade of barring anyone with less than 800 hours in turbine from touching them



Cedric_Eff said:


> This too is an joke plane.
> View attachment 1111194
> It was Lockheed’s idea of an upgraded F-104 with minor performance improvements and also having the same engines as the F-16.



Legend says this was Kelly's very last "official" design pitch for Skunkworks, and he even said it was a bad idea


----------



## BONE_Buddy (Jan 23, 2020)

TiggerNits said:


> I want to defend the harrier, because I actually have some hours in it, but jesus fucking christ does it break a lot and every maintenance officer that flies them goes full n manic-depressive. We should have just kept flying suped up A-4s instead. But the guys I know in the F35B say that they love the 35 for being what the harrier probably should have been.
> 
> Also, compared to the AV-8C the B was supposedly a thousand times better. Since they actually allowed nuggets in the B+ after more than a decade of barring anyone with less than 800 hours in turbine from touching them
> 
> ...


The F-35B _is_ better than the jump jet and its decedents. There are a lot of reasons why, but the biggest is the fact that it is a fifth generation compared to a 3.5-4th generation aircraft. 

Does it make sense to roll a STOVL concept into a stealth airframe? No. It really doesn't. The Turbofan (which was an _interesting_ choice to begin with) has to go into what would have been internal bomb bay space. Otherwise the aircraft would not have been stealthy by default.

This runs you into another problem. Bombs on external pylons are not stealthy, and since you took up most of your internal space with the turbofan, you _have_ to mount your weapons on the outside, if they are of any size or number.

Why they didn't go with an easier to maintain and only marginally less useful low-observable airframe, and pair with an aggressive electronic warfare escort. Like how the Navy did with the Super-Hornet/Growler combo, I do not know.

There is another design flaw, while it isn't causing problems right now, will severely cripple the fleet in the future.

You see, in order to get the weight low enough to that they could take this conventional takeoff aircraft, and turn it into a STOVL, they had to cut _very_ aggressively. 

Effectively they halved the useful airframe life due to accidentally removing too much frame reinforcement. This is the cancer that is "concurrent engineering." 

This _ should_ be fixed on late block F-35Bs, but earlier block aircraft will either have to be retired, or sent in for an even more expensive rebuild. I don't envy that choice.
_
TLR: Is the F-35B better than the Harrier aircraft? Yes. Is it as good as it should have been? No, and that is a bit of a travesty.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jan 23, 2020)

BONE_Buddy said:


> The F-35B _is_ better than the jump jet and its decedents. There are a lot of reasons why, but the biggest is the fact that it is a fifth generation compared to a 3.5-4th generation aircraft.
> 
> Does it make sense to roll a STOVL concept into a stealth airframe? No. It really doesn't. The Turbofan (which was an _interesting_ choice to begin with) has to go into what would have been internal bomb bay space. Otherwise the aircraft would not have been stealthy by default.
> 
> ...



And here's the REAL kicker for all of this

When the fuck is an LHA ever not going to be in range of an actual carrier or USAF assets? We're not the brits, we have full fucking force projection. STOVL probably shouldn't be something we have put any effort in to from day one, it just doesn't make sense


----------



## Spunt (Jan 23, 2020)

You want a joke VTOL plane? I present to you the Yakovlev Yak-38:





The Harrier and its derivatives had one large engine, that had its thrust piped to four nozzles that could be moved downwards for STOVL purposes.

The Yak 38 had THREE engines. Two main ones with moveable nozzles at the back, and a forward, vertically mounted third one that was only used for vertical flight. If a Harrier's engine failed while hovering, you got a bumpy landing as you fell straight down, and probably a chance to eject. If one of the Yak-38's three engines failed during a hover, their tripod arrangement would cause the aircraft to spin like a Catherine Wheel, land upside-down, and turn its pilot to blancmange. And these being 70's era Soviet engines, this happened a lot.

Assuming it got into the air, the Yak-38 had no range whatsover, not helped by a pointless third engine that was complete deadweight unless you were hovering. Its payload was also pathetic, with just four hardpoints on its stubbly little wings. It had no radar, and could only carry the USSR's rubbish IR homing missiles. Not that it had any combat capability at all, it was slow, overweight and unlike the Harrier it couldn't VIFF (Vector In Forward Flight) to increase its agility. It was mincemeat for just about any opposition.

But at least they tried I suppose.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jan 23, 2020)

Spunt said:


> You want a joke VTOL plane? I present to you the Yakovlev Yak-38:
> 
> View attachment 1111512
> 
> ...


 
The best part of the original Red Dawn was the Yak 38 failing to take off and being blow'd up real good by a hand grenade


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Jan 23, 2020)

VTOL on fixed wing aircraft is a much of a meme as variable geometry.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jan 24, 2020)

TiggerNits said:


> The best part of the original Red Dawn was the Yak 38 failing to take off and being blow'd up real good by a hand grenade


The Original Red Dawn was better. A product of its time.


----------



## BONE_Buddy (Jan 24, 2020)

Kamov Ka-52 said:


> VTOL on fixed wing aircraft is a much of a meme as variable geometry.


I agree with the caveat that Transport VTOL is a viable technology.

Just to give a quick comparison, the V-22 Osprey compares well to the CH-47F Chinook in just about every performance category including, most importantly, over double the operating range. Over 400+ nm of realistic heavy lift capability radius. The late model Chinook does have an advantage of about 4,000 lb in the operational lift category. This is largely because of not having a tilt-wing design, which if a decent design were found, would remove a 10% lift degradation.

The ability to deploy far longer distances with no refueling or relays makes VTOL transports extremely useful.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jan 24, 2020)

BONE_Buddy said:


> I agree with the caveat that Transport VTOL is a viable technology.
> 
> Just to give a quick comparison, the V-22 Osprey compares well to the CH-47F Chinook in just about every performance category including, most importantly, over double the operating range. Over 400+ nm of realistic heavy lift capability radius. The late model Chinook does have an advantage of about 4,000 lb in the operational lift category. This is largely because of not having a tilt-wing design, which if a decent design were found, would remove a 10% lift degradation.
> 
> The ability to deploy far longer distances with no refueling or relays makes VTOL transports extremely useful.



Yeah,  that's because the airframes being supplanted have very few if any outright advantages.  VTOL taking rotor wing capabilities with tilt rotor makes a ton of sense.  There's been something ridiculous like only 9% of the airframe losses per thousand hours of flight time that the 22 had suffered compared to that of the blackhawk in its first decade of operational status and the maintenance hours needed per flight hour is less thanks to cruising at higher altitudes and fewer rpm.


----------



## nfys nst (Jan 24, 2020)

Since everybody only posts American and weird German prototype WW2 stuff, I feel the need to bang some nice machines from other nations as well.
As there are so many amazing planes from all nations and specifications from that time period, I'll just start off with some of the more well-known Japanese single-engine fighters so I don't end up writing a book. I'll probably do other types, nations and maybe some cool prototypes later if I'm in the mood. Not gonna talk about the Zero since everybody and their mother knows it.

First off, I'll (hopefully be able to) explain naming conventions, this shit can be quite confusing and frankly stupid at times. Don't read this unless you have autism or want to contract autism. The TL;DR is: The IJNAAF (Navy) and IJAAF (Army) use different naming conventions that you can, in the case of the Navy, use to get basic information on the aircraft. In case of the Army, they're almost completely arbitrary.
The Americans understandably weren't willing to deal with this bullshit and just gave western names to Japanese planes. Fighters got male names, bombers, reconnaisance and transports got female names, gliders were named after birds, trainers after trees. Be American, be smart, don't contract autism.


Spoiler



Army aircraft use "Ki"- (short for "Kitai", aircraft), a number, a dash (-) followed by a Latin numeral and, in some cases, a lower case letter (a, b, c, d...) or Ko, Otsu, Hei, Tei etc. (there's more of those, but I don't know all of them, I'm not a Dr. or some shit), with the latter being the more common method. A full example would be Ki-84-I ko (or Ki-84a). Ki is just short for "Kitai" (aircraft). The number used to be chronological, the plane after the Ki-43 would be called Ki-44, but this number system was randomised during the war, so we get stuff like the Ki-200 (a copy of the German Me-163 rocket interceptor). The -with the latin numeral shows the series, it's essentially like the letter system the Americans used (B-24A/B/C...), the Ko/Otsu/Hei or lower-case letter denotes a variant in a series, like how the Americans used production blocks (P-51D-25 for example). The Army uses the same naming conventions for all types of aircraft, so you can't tell it's a fighter, a bomber or a trainer etc.

The Navy uses a more in-depth system of letter-number-letter-number, e.g. A6M3; the first letter denotes the aircraft's role, A is a carrier fighter, J is a land-based fighter, B is a carrier-based torpedo bomber etc. The first number denotes the number of the aircraft for the role, the second number denotes the manufacturer and the last number the major variant, kind of like the American letter system I already used above. Additionally, these names are further supported by "Model xx", the model being 2 numbers, the first number designating the airframe, the second the engine, starting from 11 (the first type of the airframe with the first type of the engine). The A6M3 would be Model 32 (commonly shortened to Mod 32), for example. On top of that, like in the Army, planes could have a ko, otsu/a, b, c etc at the end of their designation, denoting (relatively) minor production changes, kind of like how the Americans used production blocks
To finally tie all of this autistic drivel together, the A6M5 Mod 52ko would be a carrier based fighter, the 6th design built for that role, built by Mitsubishi and the fifthmajor variant, using the fifth version of the airframe and the second version of the engine, with the ko denoting a further small change, in this case carrying more ammo over the regular A6M5 Mod 52.

Both services can also add "Kai", sometimes in capital letters, after a name, "Kai" basically means "improved" and denotes a major upgrade, it's rarely used, however.



Army fighters

Ki-43 Hayabusa ("Oscar")


Spoiler







The IJAAF's lesser known direct contemporary of the A6M Zero, pretty much only remembered because the Flying Tigers fought those things over China and because it somehow lost all exhibition bouts against the Zero despite being the objectively superior aircraft in a direct dogfighting engagement. Its handling characteristics were very similar to a Zero, except it wouldn't lock up and would stay ludicrously agile at all speeds; whereas Allied pilots noted you could shake off a Zero with some rolls at mid-high speeds, the Ki-43 would stay glued to your ass like shit to a shoe. Of note also is the type's use of "butterfly"-type flaps, an advancement of the fowler-type, further enhancing the plane's already insane agility. The main production Ki-43-II variant was powered by a Ha-113 powerplant with 1200 HP, a powerful engine for such a small and lightweight aircraft. The Japanese also loved explosive stuff and built extremely deadly high-explosive shells for all their air-to-air weapons, so on a bad day you'd end up having this thing on your ass slinging exploding .50 cal rounds from its 2 cowling-mounted Ho-103 machineguns at you with your only chance of surviving being a steep dive. Similar to the Zero, the type soldiered on until the end of the war and would fare increasingly poorly in combat. Also has its own movie and theme song.



Ki-44 Shoki ("Tojo")


Spoiler








This goofy son of a bitch is another amazing aircraft many people unfortunately don't know about. Entering service in early 1942, this aircraft eschewed the traditional Japanese philosophy of putting agility over everything and instead favoured climb rate and speed. The Japanese definition of an aircraft with "poor agility" heavily differs from everybody else's though, it was still considerably more agile than basically all western aircraft in service at the time that weren't Spitfires or F4Fs. The main production variant, the Ki-44-II series, sported a top speed of ~615 kph, a crazy climbrate thanks to a Ha-109 14-cylinder radial engine with 1550 HP mounted to a plane with a gross weight of just over 2,5 tons, a fast roll rate and high maximum dive speed of well over 800 kph. Fortunately for American pilots, the type mostly saw action on the Asian continent before being becoming one of the preferred aircraft in home defence operations against B-29 raids. Either armed with 2 Ho-103 .50 caliber machineguns and 2 rifle-caliber Type 89 machineguns (Ki-44-I, Ki-44-II ko) or 4 Ho-103 machineguns (Ki-44-II otsu), one variant, the Ki-44-II hei, was notably armed with 2 rapid-fire 40mm cannons using caseless ammunition designed for use against bombers.



Ki-61 Hien ("Tony")/Ki-100


Spoiler









The Ki-61 is particularly interesting, as it is one of the few Japanese planes powered by an inline engine, in this case by an improved licence-built DB 601, now called Ha-40, the same engine that powered the early Bf 109 Es over Britain, delivering some 1150 HP. Similarities to German and Italian planes were so striking, some Americans actually believed the Japanese used licence-built planes, leading to the reporting name "Tony", as it resembled an Italian fighter. These planes entered service in early 1943 and performed admirably. Many early F4U pilots noted the Ki-61 to be the most challenging Japanese plane to shoot down. Top speed for the Ki-61-I was about 580 kph, the Ki-61-II could go roughly 620.
The aging engine later underwent major redesign, being redesignated Ha-140 and now producing 1500 HP to power the Ki-61-II Kai, an all-around improved version of the Ki-61. The inline engine proved tricky to maintain however and production quality tended to be low, making high command call to replace the engine with the reliable Ha-112 "Kinsei" radial engine with 1600 HP.




Additionally, by January 1945, the plant producing Ha-140 engines had been destroyed and quite a lot of finished airframes now would not be able to fly. In their desperation, the Army decided to convert the airframes to use the readily available radial engine, creating the Ki-100, which interestingly never received a reporting name by the Americans. Although merely an improvised bandaid, the Ki-100 performed quite impressively as a fighter, being able to fulfill various roles. Many Ki-100 pilots also enjoyed better training than their peers, with a captured P-51 being used to simulate engagements, giving them a more fair fighting chance. The Ki-100 had a top speed of about 590 kph.



Ki-84 Hayate ("Frank")


Spoiler











This one's one of the more well-known Japanese aircraft, and for a good reason. Nakajima took the lessons learned from their previous projects, the Ki-43 and Ki-44, and combined them to build a world-class aircraft that could easily match the big boys fighting over Europe. Its Ha-45 "Homare" 18-cylinder powerplant was quite a marvel of engineering, putting a large amount of engine into a deceptively small amount of space, however, it was quite maintenance intensive and difficult to manufacture. Entering service en masse in 1944 after exceptionally promising calculations and testing, IJAAF high command had put massive hopes into the aircraft, holding all development on other aircraft beforehand and forcing all available factories to crank out as many of these aircraft as possible. The oftentimes horribly rushed production and poor quality of maintenance that was provided on the frontlines greatly marred the plane's reputation until today. A well-built and maintained Ki-84 is, as already mentioned, an outstanding machine with no real weaknesses, combining speed, climbrate, agility and armament into a deadly package. A mid-production variant powered by the Ha-45-21 engine, providing 2000 HP, could reach a top speed of ~680 kph, and the obscure late-production machines probably only deployed against the Soviet Union in northern China are said to have been able to hit over 700 kph. Most Ki-84s were armed with 2 .50 cal machineguns in the cowling and 2 20mm Ho-5 cannons in the wings, with very small production blocks being armed with 4 20mm cannons or 2 20mm cannons and 2 30mm cannons.




Navy fighters

J2M Raiden ("Jack")


Spoiler








The peculiar J2M Raiden was designed and built by Mitsubishi as an interceptor, focusing on climbrate and heavy armament to tackle attacking forces at a moment's notice. Like most Japanese fighters, the J2M is a lightweight design powered by a large engine, in this case an MK4/Ha-32 "Kasei" with 1800 horsepower. The engine went through several developments over the plane's short service life, mostly by attempting to increase the plane's performance at high altitudes, although none of these measures garnered large success.
Being deployed in early 1944 after troublesome development, the J2M fortunately was a rare sight for American airmen. Of particular note is the cowling; in order to increase the aircraft's speed, its cowling and subsequently its propeller shaft were elongated, with the propeller shaft also turning a cooling fan, similar to the system used by the German FW 190 multirole fighter, giving the aircraft excellent cooling characteristics. American testing of captured planes revealed that the system was so efficient that the engine faced the risk of being over-cooled. In combat, the Raiden impresses through its amazing rate of climb, acceleration, vertical agility and powerful armament of either 2 rifle-caliber machineguns 2 20mm Type 99 Model 2 canonns (J2M2) or 4 20mm cannons, 2 Type 99 Model 1 and 2 Type 99 Model 2 (J2M3 (pictured above, I love that artwork) and J2M5). Most people who know their stuff and some cool pdf of a computer calculated comparison against an F6F-5 put the J2M3's top speed at ~615 kph, although estimates vary wildly. Blame the slant-eyes for being sore losers and burning many of their documents and speaking moon-runes so nobody can bother searching through their archives as the Japanese don't care that much about their history.



N1K2-J Shiden-Kai ("George")


Spoiler








Another (in-)famous fighter, the N1K2 built its fame through its interesting development cycle, good performance and by merit of being the steed of the elite 343rd Naval Air Group, a squadron made up exclusively of all surviving Japanese aces, formed in December 1944.
The N1K2-J started off as a humble seaplane, designated N1K1, but when it was finished by 1943, it was evident Japan didn't need a plane of that specification anymore. However, the N1K1 had proved to be a promising aircraft, so it was decided to be reworked to a land-based fighter and the N1K1-J Shiden was born. To start where we left off with naming conventions, a - with a letter after the name designates a role change of an aircraft, in this case from seaplane to land-based fighter. Directly after the N1K1-J started production, the designers got together and revamped the design to make it less of a weird stopgap measure. This resulted in the N1K2-J, a fine fighter. It uses the same "Homare" engine the Ki-84 uses and performs quite similar, except it's quite a bit slower at only ~635 kph. It's armed to the teeth with 4 20mm cannons, carrying 900 shells in total. Particularly noteworthy is its automatic flap system, depending on pressure exerted to the plane's wings, it will automatically extend its flaps to tighten its turning circle, taking workload off the pilot and making the plane even more deadly than it already is. The 343rd performed impressively where they were deployed and actually lost more planes to the N1K2's shitty landing gear than to enemy action, being the only late-war air group that destroyed more planes than it lost in combat.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Jan 24, 2020)

nfys nst said:


> Since everybody only posts American and weird German prototype WW2 stuff





Spoiler: Have some slavshit































































Spoiler:  and some Baguetteshit


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jan 25, 2020)

nfys nst said:


> Since everybody only posts American and weird German prototype WW2 stuff, I feel the need to bang some nice machines from other nations as well.
> As there are so many amazing planes from all nations and specifications from that time period, I'll just start off with some of the more well-known Japanese single-engine fighters so I don't end up writing a book. I'll probably do other types, nations and maybe some cool prototypes later if I'm in the mood. Not gonna talk about the Zero since everybody and their mother knows it.
> 
> First off, I'll (hopefully be able to) explain naming conventions, this shit can be quite confusing and frankly stupid at times. Don't read this unless you have autism or want to contract autism. The TL;DR is: The IJNAAF (Navy) and IJAAF (Army) use different naming conventions that you can, in the case of the Navy, use to get basic information on the aircraft. In case of the Army, they're almost completely arbitrary.
> ...


Mitsubishi really needs to give their planes Americanized names like Frank or George. I’d be funny.


----------



## who dare wins? (Jan 25, 2020)

Cedric_Eff said:


> This too is an joke plane.
> View attachment 1111194
> It was Lockheed’s idea of an upgraded F-104 with minor performance improvements and also having the same engines as the F-16.


wouldnt the engine she fucking year that's twig of a plane apart? Seriously what where they thinking.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jan 25, 2020)

who dare wins? said:


> wouldnt the engine she fucking year that's twig of a plane apart? Seriously what where they thinking.


Year apart? Probably, but I like the wing placement and the overall design.


----------



## who dare wins? (Jan 25, 2020)

Cedric_Eff said:


> Year apart? Probably, but I like the wing placement and the overall design.


sorry, my phone keeps fucking auto correcting a lot Andrew it sucks ass. The wing placement is pretty ok however they look a bit too small for my liking


----------



## millais (Jan 25, 2020)

View from the cockpit of Rudolf Stark's Fokker D.VII, painted by the pilot himself. Somewhere out there is the original full color painting, but for now all we have is a greyscale reproduction from his war memoirs.




That's pretty much how it looks in the flight sim too. He even painted the perspective to show how he lined up the iron sights on the righthand lMG 08/15 to take a rightward deflection shot, just like you would in the flight sim.

I believe he did all the paintings after the war from memory, so just goes to show how strong an impression the aircraft made on him if he could do a photo-realistic painting of the cockpit view years after spending only the last few months of the war in the new D.VII


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jan 26, 2020)

Am glad Japan got rid of these in favor of the F-4s and the F-15s.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Feb 8, 2020)

There is no general aviation thread?


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Feb 14, 2020)

What if there was an fly by wire version of the F-104?


----------



## TiggerNits (Feb 14, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


> There is no general aviation thread?


Commercial aviation sucks.  I did it for a year and quit flying all together for awhile after because of how much it just killed my love of flying. 

At least bus drivers understand their job is lame as fuck


----------



## nfys nst (Feb 14, 2020)

I wanted to write a little about the Me 163 rocket fighter because of how comically dangerous it was to everyone involved, but then I saw that Greg made a video about it and he can explain things better than I'll ever be able to, so I'll just link it. Keep your eyes peeled for the second part.




If you're interested in WW2 aircraft and don't mind some occasionally quite intense autism (the good kind, the guy REALLY loves aircraft), definitely watch his videos, they're extremely in-depth and well-researched. His series on the P-47 really is outstanding work.


----------



## Bad Gateway (Feb 14, 2020)

YF-23 is the only true waifu


----------



## TiggerNits (Feb 14, 2020)

dotONION said:


> YF-23 is the only true waifu
> View attachment 1144728


The YF-22 won, but the F-22A looks like the YF22 fucked the YF23, which is for the best.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Feb 18, 2020)

any opinions on the Mitsubishi X-2?



is 3D Thrust Vectoring a joke?


----------



## TiggerNits (Feb 18, 2020)

Cedric_Eff said:


> any opinions on the Mitsubishi X-2?
> View attachment 1150088
> is 3D Thrust Vectoring a joke?


Neat concept, took the thrust vectoring system from the X-31, threw it on a 1:2 scale F22. Might be a solid F-2A replacement


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Feb 18, 2020)

TiggerNits said:


> Neat concept, took the thrust vectoring system from the X-31, threw it on a 1:2 scale F22. Might be a solid F-2A replacement


They were talking about hypothetically replacing the F-15 with the full version of these.


----------



## TiggerNits (Feb 18, 2020)

Cedric_Eff said:


> They were talking about hypothetically replacing the F-15 with the full version of these.


If they can fit a powerful enough radar in it and enough missiles it could work


----------



## Fools Idol (Feb 18, 2020)

dotONION said:


> YF-23 is the only true waifu
> View attachment 1144728


The niggers responsible killing this beauty should be taken out back and shot.


----------



## Deryn (Feb 21, 2020)

O I love old planes! My favourites are American and Japanese WWII fighters.


----------



## Doctor Placebo (Feb 21, 2020)

During the Nigerian Civil War the Biafrans were known for having a surprisingly effective air force despite it consisting of less than two dozen planes cobbled together from literally anything they could get their hands on that would fly. These little puppies were known as "Biafra Babies" and they were repurposed Swedish MFI-9 light planes with rocket launchers added under the wings. The Biafran Air Force had five of them and was the only air force in the world to use the normally civilian planes for military purposes.


----------



## Uranus Pink (Feb 21, 2020)

Fools Idol said:


> The niggers responsible killing this beauty should be taken out back and shot.


Nothing of value would have been lost if done so.


----------



## CDWLTY (Feb 21, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


> There is no general aviation thread?


What would we talk about? Pprune is where the cool kids go to argue about regionals and hauling mail. The farms are for cows, shitposting, and the best news aggregator in the world.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Feb 21, 2020)




----------



## CDWLTY (Feb 21, 2020)

Doctor Placebo said:


> View attachment 1155351
> 
> During the Nigerian Civil War the Biafrans were known for having a surprisingly effective air force despite it consisting of less than two dozen planes cobbled together from literally anything they could get their hands on that would fly. These little puppies were known as "Biafra Babies" and they were repurposed Swedish MFI-9 light planes with rocket launchers added under the wings. The Biafran Air Force had five of them and was the only air force in the world to use the normally civilian planes for military purposes.


It's so depressing to think they had figured out some CAS solutions in vietnam with the bronco and the Bird Dog only to throw it all away in favor of more slick jets.  If they had slots open for T-6's or tucano's, they'd have lines out the door at the recruiter from the nerds who wanted to fly a WWII fighter.  It's as close as you can get in the modern age, and it would've saved a lot of money in the sandbox having some dude winding a little turbine to strafe goat farmers with .50.  Instead we were dropping super expensive JDAM's from airframes with higher time.


----------



## Doctor Placebo (Feb 21, 2020)

CDWLTY said:


> It's so depressing to think they had figured out some CAS solutions in vietnam with the bronco and the Bird Dog only to throw it all away in favor of more slick jets.  If they had slots open for T-6's or tucano's, they'd have lines out the door at the recruiter from the nerds who wanted to fly a WWII fighter.  It's as close as you can get in the modern age, and it would've saved a lot of money in the sandbox having some dude winding a little turbine to strafe goat farmers with .50.  Instead we were dropping super expensive JDAM's from airframes with higher time.


Defense contractors and backdoor deals, yo. The military industrial complex is real.

Anyway, here's more Biafran Air Force:



A B-26 Invader that was flown by WW2 flying ace Jan Zumbach while he worked for the Biafrans as a mercenary going by the alias John Brown. Zumbach and several Swedish flying mercenaries helped train the native Biafran pilots and provided invaluable expertise that only someone who's been flying in combat zones for years can know, which probably contributed heavily to making them so effective despite their small numbers and resources.


----------



## BONE_Buddy (Feb 22, 2020)

CDWLTY said:


> It's so depressing to think they had figured out some CAS solutions in vietnam with the bronco and the Bird Dog only to throw it all away in favor of more slick jets.  If they had slots open for T-6's or tucano's, they'd have lines out the door at the recruiter from the nerds who wanted to fly a WWII fighter.  It's as close as you can get in the modern age, and it would've saved a lot of money in the sandbox having some dude winding a little turbine to strafe goat farmers with .50.  Instead we were dropping super expensive JDAM's from airframes with higher time.


It is a bit of a meme that JDAMs are wildly expensive, the average price for the full featured workhorse model (with laser designation capability) is only about $21,000 dollars. It is a very cheap and effective precision system. 

Here is a recently aquired list of some of the USA's price per unit costs:








						Here Is What Each Of The Pentagon's Air-Launched Missiles And Bombs Actually Cost
					

Arming America's combat aircraft, drones, and helicopters is an extremely expensive business.




					www.thedrive.com
				




As for your dream of US owned and operated light attack aircraft, you may still get your wish:








						SOCOM is eyeing a fleet of light attack aircraft for 'armed overwatch'
					

U.S. Special Operations Command is looking to pick up 75 light attack aircraft to conduct "armed overwatch" missions in conjunction with ground forces, according to new solicitation




					taskandpurpose.com
				











						SOCOM Announces Plans to Buy 75 ‘Armed Overwatch’ Planes - Air Force Magazine
					

USSOCOM is moving forward with its armed overwatch plan, inviting industry for a briefing on a proposal to buy an estimated 75 aircraft.




					www.airforcemag.com
				




The problem with the light aircraft is as it has always been, you have a fundamental disadvantage in two areas:

1. Pilot survivability. If you are ever in a situation where you_ aren't_ bombing some third world tribal asshat, then you are putting lives at a rather high risk if you operate these kinds of aircraft. MANPADs and auto-cannons are a standard in most standing armies these days, and many of these prop aircraft are bigger sitting ducks than even gunship helicopters.

2. weapon capacity. If you want more than a couple of bombs, and a box of auto-cannon ammo, then you are going to have to either put on multiple engines, or switch it out for a jet engine. It it really worth the cost of training up a group of specialist maintainers and pilots, as well as a separate supply chain, just to give an overwatch capability that can be done by your recon drones who are already doing overwatch already. 

I am not deaf to the arguments of the light aircraft fans. I have made the same case several times. I do think that there is a place for Turboprop CAS in counter-terrorism operations. I especially like the idea of training our allies to use these easy to maintain and fund aircraft to their advantage. I also think that the US needs a dedicated CAS aircraft, but I do not think that light turboprop is a good solution when we are trying to return to being able to fight Nation States. 

I will continue to push for a light attack aircraft program with the idea of being able to farm out day to day counter-terrorism operations to our allies in the region.



Cedric_Eff said:


> any opinions on the Mitsubishi X-2?
> View attachment 1150088
> is 3D Thrust Vectoring a joke?


Interesting little plane. As for my opinions:

I think they are going to just end up buying more F-35As and F-15(insert latest model designation here)s. 

The Japanese have been pushing for American stealth fighters since the F-22 came about. We refuse to sell them the aircraft (for not irrational reasons). So Japan embarked on a program of developing their own stealth fighter program. It has been half hearted as it is fucking expensive, but the real reason why they were doing this was to convince the American government to sell the most high end fighters to Japan. This is part of the reason why the F-35 was developed the way that it was, it was meant to be a stealth fighter that we could sell to our allies.

And so it came to pass that Japan has bought 147 of the F-35 family.

I still don't think that they will replace as many of the F-15Js with stealth fighters as they think they are going to. While the F-15 was meant to be a fighter first, it turned into one of the more effective bomb-trucks and missile boats on the market. It has a heavy carrying capability, is able to get to the target and back quickly, Additionally, due to being a very mature platform, it has a very well developed parts and maintenance market. It makes a very capable tactical bomber, and is still a very viable strategic intercepter. 

So, they may replace one F-15 with another, but I do not see them phasing them out anytime soon. They are going to be retiring the last of their F-4 Phantoms though. That is a bit sad, if not entirely unwelcome. 

As for 3D Thrust Vectoring? Not a joke, very good for close dogfighting.

How much close dogfighting will the Japanese actually be doing? Probably not much, but there are always surprises.

Is it worth the maintenance sink, reliability issues, and stealth compromise? Probably not.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Feb 22, 2020)




----------



## Cedric_Eff (Feb 22, 2020)

Kamov Ka-52 said:


> View attachment 1156217


B-1’s for the win.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Feb 22, 2020)

This should’ve replaced the C-130.


----------



## BONE_Buddy (Feb 22, 2020)

Cedric_Eff said:


> B-1’s for the win.


bud, I hate to break it to you, but those are B-52s.

There does appear to be a nose of a B-1B in the background though.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Feb 22, 2020)

BONE_Buddy said:


> bud, I hate to break it to you, but those are B-52s.
> 
> There does appear to be a nose of a B-1B in the background though.


I know they’re B-52’s. I actually don’t like em. 

B-1’s potential were stolen by them.


----------



## Sable (Feb 22, 2020)

I don't really know much about planes, but I rather like the Mosquito.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Feb 23, 2020)




----------



## MrJokerRager (Feb 27, 2020)




----------



## Cedric_Eff (Feb 27, 2020)

Kamov Ka-52 said:


> View attachment 1157517
> View attachment 1157518
> View attachment 1157520
> View attachment 1157528


God the C-130 with an rocket is fucking nuts. Too bad they weren’t great at rescuing people from religious nut jobs.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Feb 28, 2020)




----------



## Muzzilicious (Feb 28, 2020)

I don't know all that much about planes to begin with, but this is the most beautiful machine everrrr...how does it fly! I want to use the toilet in one just to say I shit in it


----------



## Doctor Placebo (Feb 28, 2020)

Muzzilicious said:


> I don't know all that much about planes to begin with, but this is the most beautiful machine everrrr...how does it fly! I want to use the toilet in one just to say I shit in it
> 
> View attachment 1165571View attachment 1165572


This may be the most sci-fi spaceship looking plane ever and actually did its job well to boot, unlike all that experimental Third Reich shit that never made it out of the conceptual stage that people like to drool over. Iconic, 10/10.


----------



## bippu_as_fuck_ls400 (Feb 28, 2020)

I'm sure a large number of UFO sightings were this aircraft back when it was being developed.










Fighter pilot podcast did an episode on it recently:


----------



## Muzzilicious (Feb 28, 2020)

Doctor Placebo said:


> This may be the most sci-fi spaceship looking plane ever and actually did its job well to boot, unlike all that experimental Third Reich shit that never made it out of the conceptual stage that people like to drool over. Iconic, 10/10.



Super agree!! What I posted is the new upcoming one (B-21). Hides more of the engines I guess, but has all the new shiny things now too.









						B-21 Raider - The Next Stealth Bomber
					

Video Sponsored by Ridge Wallet: https://www.ridge.com/COVERTCABAL Use Code “COVERTCABAL” for 10% off your order We started a Podcast - Tac Ops - www.youtube...




					www.youtube.com


----------



## MrJokerRager (Mar 1, 2020)




----------



## McMitch4kf (Mar 1, 2020)

How about the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II? A plane built around a gun so big, it has to be mounted off-center. Able to take a punch just as much as it can give, on top of being ugly as hell.


----------



## break these cuffs (Mar 2, 2020)

McMitch4kf said:


> How about the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II? A plane built around a gun so big, it has to be mounted off-center. Able to take a punch just as much as it can give, on top of being ugly as hell.


They are absolutely beloved by grunts and hated by elements of the Air Force high command because they aren't cool stealth jets. I never had the opportunity to have one do a gun run, but a Super Cobra gun runs at night are mighty impressive themselves. Slow moving CAS that can loiter on station has always been beloved by ground elements. The A-1 Skyraider is another example from Korea and Vietnam.


----------



## Muzzilicious (Mar 2, 2020)

Fighter Jets and Airshow in 4K Slow Motion (Super-zoom)
					

Fighter Jet Flybys in Slow Motion is what I captured here as well as some air show extras like the MV-22 Osprey, A-10 Warthog, Red Arrows T1, F-16, F-22 Rapt...




					youtu.be


----------



## BONE_Buddy (Mar 3, 2020)

Muzzilicious said:


> Super agree!! What I posted is the new upcoming one (B-21). Hides more of the engines I guess, but has all the new shiny things now too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One of the big things on the B-21 is that is will be able to fly over 10,000 feet higher than the B-2.









						The B-21's Three Decade Old Shape Hints At New High Altitude Capabilities
					

Northrop Grumman seems to have gone "back to the future" with their next generation stealth bomber design, and that's actually really exciting.




					www.thedrive.com
				




It will also be cheaper and easier to maintain (buying in bulk and lessons learned). On the other hand it will also be quite a bit smaller.

It will also be stealthier, but by how much and why, well... that is a state secret.


----------



## TiggerNits (Mar 3, 2020)

break these cuffs said:


> They are absolutely beloved by grunts and hated by elements of the Air Force high command because they aren't cool stealth jets. I never had the opportunity to have one do a gun run, but a Super Cobra gun runs at night are mighty impressive themselves. Slow moving CAS that can loiter on station has always been beloved by ground elements. The A-1 Skyraider is another example from Korea and Vietnam.



The gun sucks. We'd do CAS exercises with A-10's all the time at Barry Goldwater and our 25mm was about the same efficacy as their 30, though they were slightly more accurate, but still couldn't penetrate anything more armored than an early model Patton. It's not even any better for rooting out infantry in light cover than a 20mm vulcan. The real teeth to the A-10 is the pilots being extremely dedicated and professional, along with having a ton of capacity to carry bombs. Their loiter time is really good, but the amount of time it takes them to link up with a tanker when they're getting low and then get back on station negates that a little, too.

Reality is if I was an infantry officer or JTAC in contact with enemies in cover, I'd rather have an Apache, Predator or Rhino/Strike Eagle, the Apache and pred will provide better overall SA to me. The Rhino and Eagle will get there much faster, with the ability to self lase/designate targets I can point out and do so quickly (dude in the backseat is seriously under rated, but I digress) if the A-10 is already there and I have something to designate with, the the A-10 is good, but if I'm getting swarmed and worried about getting ambushed and/or enemy reinforcements coming, I want something better.


That said, the A-10 is still better than the Harrier in every way except takeoff and landing roll so I really can't talk too much shit


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Mar 3, 2020)

TiggerNits said:


> The gun sucks. We'd do CAS exercises with A-10's all the time at Barry Goldwater and our 25mm was about the same efficacy as their 30, though they were slightly more accurate, but still couldn't penetrate anything more armored than an early model Patton. It's not even any better for rooting out infantry in light cover than a 20mm vulcan. The real teeth to the A-10 is the pilots being extremely dedicated and professional, along with having a ton of capacity to carry bombs. Their loiter time is really good, but the amount of time it takes them to link up with a tanker when they're getting low and then get back on station negates that a little, too.
> 
> Reality is if I was an infantry officer or JTAC in contact with enemies in cover, I'd rather have an Apache, Predator or Rhino/Strike Eagle, the Apache and pred will provide better overall SA to me. The Rhino and Eagle will get there much faster, with the ability to self lase/designate targets I can point out and do so quickly (dude in the backseat is seriously under rated, but I digress) if the A-10 is already there and I have something to designate with, the the A-10 is good, but if I'm getting swarmed and worried about getting ambushed and/or enemy reinforcements coming, I want something better.
> 
> ...


We’re lucky we’re not in the A-9 timeline. It would’ve been an shittier A-10 but with an more efficient geared turbofan engine.


----------



## Slappy McGherkin (Mar 3, 2020)

TiggerNits said:


> We'd do CAS exercises with A-10's all the time at Barry Goldwater



They still do. I always stop and watch as I'm heading down 85. The F-16s from Luke play hide and seek shit that's fun to watch as you get to the mountainous area of the range just before Ajo. Really close in and low. Barry Goldwater is probably the best range in the US for sand box warfare simulation as well as terrain like Afghanistan.


----------



## CDWLTY (Mar 3, 2020)

Yeah, with how the ol' .mil runs things, they only ever get their shit in order after they digest their previous engagement. Spending a ton on setting up a light, flexible, CAS system would karmically ensure higher-tech aliens drop out of the sky to help the chinese push their tech further along the tree, leaving us with a bunch of damn prop planes against flying saucers. 

Anyone have any idea of a civilian 2-seat A-10 that was sold in the market back in the 80's or so? Heard a couple rumors about one floating around that was bought with texas oil money when the assembly line was up and running. Heard there's one in a hangar down there but didn't really see pics. By now I'd think there has to be something to it, two-seaters aren't really a thing for that and the level of detail in the accounts points to it being something in private hands no one's taken out of the hangar in quite some time.


----------



## bluegenius8585 (Mar 3, 2020)

Fun fact, I have a CPL and used to do things like military gear 

Not saying what specifically as it may make me doxxable


----------



## BONE_Buddy (Mar 3, 2020)

TiggerNits said:


> The gun sucks. We'd do CAS exercises with A-10's all the time at Barry Goldwater and our 25mm was about the same efficacy as their 30, though they were slightly more accurate, but still couldn't penetrate anything more armored than an early model Patton. It's not even any better for rooting out infantry in light cover than a 20mm vulcan. The real teeth to the A-10 is the pilots being extremely dedicated and professional, along with having a ton of capacity to carry bombs. Their loiter time is really good, but the amount of time it takes them to link up with a tanker when they're getting low and then get back on station negates that a little, too.
> 
> Reality is if I was an infantry officer or JTAC in contact with enemies in cover, I'd rather have an Apache, Predator or Rhino/Strike Eagle, the Apache and pred will provide better overall SA to me. The Rhino and Eagle will get there much faster, with the ability to self lase/designate targets I can point out and do so quickly (dude in the backseat is seriously under rated, but I digress) if the A-10 is already there and I have something to designate with, the the A-10 is good, but if I'm getting swarmed and worried about getting ambushed and/or enemy reinforcements coming, I want something better.
> 
> ...


You are right, just one pedantic correction though. The A-10 is one of the few fixed wing aircraft that can actually launch Hellfire missiles. So, for a very long time, it was the best tank killer the Air force had. The JAGM program will allow the faster aircraft to deploy a better Anti-Tank Missile. 

We would have already had the JAGM, but it was canceled three separate times.


----------



## TiggerNits (Mar 3, 2020)

BONE_Buddy said:


> You are right, just one pedantic correction though. The A-10 is one of the few fixed wing aircraft that can actually launch Hellfire missiles. So, for a very long time, it was the best tank killer the Air force had. The JAGM program will allow the faster aircraft to deploy a better Anti-Tank Missile.
> 
> We would have already had the JAGM, but it was canceled three separate times.



Yeah,  the hog's still solid platform and i always feel bad taking shots at it


And for my pedantic point: mavericks kill tanks really good.  Plus the Marines actually have put hellfires on KC130s in 2013 and have used them in Afghan, because of fucking course we did that shit is extremely some ol bullshit we'd pull.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Mar 4, 2020)

Replacing A-10’s with F-35’s is a joke.


----------



## 1Tonka_Truck (Mar 4, 2020)

BONE_Buddy said:


> 2. weapon capacity. If you want more than a couple of bombs, and a box of auto-cannon ammo, then you are going to have to either put on multiple engines, or switch it out for a jet engine. It it really worth the cost of training up a group of specialist maintainers and pilots, as well as a separate supply chain, just to give an overwatch capability that can be done by your recon drones who are already doing overwatch already.


Austere runways/forward resupply points. If it works for spray planes, It'll work for CAS. Ties in with farming out support to host country units, too.


----------



## Muzzilicious (Mar 4, 2020)

Cedric_Eff said:


> Replacing A-10’s with F-35’s is a joke.



For guns and direct combat sake, yah, I totally agree. But what bout all those smart systems and battle management stuff the 35 has?


----------



## TiggerNits (Mar 4, 2020)

Muzzilicious said:


> For guns and direct combat sake, yah, I totally agree. But what bout all those smart systems and battle management stuff the 35 has?


Hell, if we're talking pure numbers for CAS and integrated capability, the Bone has flown more hours, delivered more ordnance and done it with a lot more endurance once on station than the A-10

Also Boeing's new pitch to replace the Kiowa, Apache and some Army drone assets


----------



## Still Anonymous For This (Mar 4, 2020)

Fly the F35 for CAS roles when fighting other nation states and purchase the Super Tucano for COIN work.  Everyone wins.


----------



## ZooSmell (Mar 5, 2020)

SU-30 SM.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Mar 5, 2020)

TiggerNits said:


> Hell, if we're talking pure numbers for CAS and integrated capability, the Bone has flown more hours, delivered more ordnance and done it with a lot more endurance once on station than the A-10
> 
> Also Boeing's new pitch to replace the Kiowa, Apache and some Army drone assets
> 
> ...


The fuck is this bug looking motherfucker!? This is the X-32 all over again.


----------



## BONE_Buddy (Mar 11, 2020)

Air Force F-16s Are Getting Pylons With Built-In Missile Warning Sensors And Countermeasures
					

The bolt-on upgrade will make aging F-16s more survivable by providing better awareness of missile threats and a better ability to fend them off.




					www.thedrive.com
				












						Pakistani F-16 Crashes In Islamabad, Video Shows Hard Maneuver Before Impact (Updated)
					

The aircraft was involved in a practice flight in preparation for a parade that will occur later in the month when the incident took place.




					www.thedrive.com
				











						Terrifying New Video Shows Moment Pakistani F-16 Impacted The Ground
					

The closeup closed-circuit video shows the jet hitting the ground with its nose high before turning into a giant fireball.




					www.thedrive.com
				







Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## Consider Lizärds (Mar 13, 2020)

Some cold war selling from SAAB, for some Friday warm fuzzies.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Mar 20, 2020)




----------



## MrJokerRager (May 14, 2020)

How many airborne divisions or Paratroopers could this thing carry?


----------



## Donbasstard (May 14, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


> How many airborne divisions or Paratroopers could this thing carry?


Zero divisions. Zero paratroopers. It was designed to carry our space shuttle and one example was built developed from the 124 which is for heavy strategic airlift- like moving heavy machinery components.


----------



## The Dude (May 14, 2020)

Donbasstard said:


> Zero divisions. Zero paratroopers. It was designed to carry our space shuttle and one example was built developed from the 124 which is for heavy strategic airlift- like moving heavy machinery components.



Actually it was designed to carry the Buran shuttle the Soviets built. NASA used modified 747s to haul the shuttle around. But this jet was modified from an Antonov Soviet military jet, basically their version of the C5 Galaxy.

Edit: I do believe this one did haul our shuttle a few times after the Iron Curtain fell, but mostly the job was handled by 747s.


----------



## Donbasstard (May 14, 2020)

The Dude said:


> Actually it was designed to carry the Buran shuttle the Soviets built. NASA used modified 747s to haul the shuttle around. But this jet was modified from an Antonov Soviet military jet, basically their version of the C5 Galaxy.
> 
> Edit: I do believe this one did haul our shuttle a few times after the Iron Curtain fell, but mostly the job was handled by 747s.



I was born in the Soviet Union. I live in Russia, so when I say ‘our’ I was meaning Buran. Forgive me for the confusion.


----------



## The Dude (May 14, 2020)

Donbasstard said:


> I was born in the Soviet Union. I live in Russia, so when I say ‘our’ I was meaning Buran. Forgive me for the confusion.



Ah, gotcha. Spasibo tovarish.


----------



## MrJokerRager (May 16, 2020)




----------



## Cedric_Eff (May 19, 2020)

Russian fighter jets are a meme.

RAFALE GANG RISE UP!!


----------



## millais (May 23, 2020)

The local division of the Confederate Air Force was practicing flyovers today ahead of the Memorial Day holiday on Monday. I saw several flights of vintage warbirds over the course of the day, but my phone is so slow to swap to video/camera mode that I couldn't get any footage.

The first flight was a tight formation of about six or seven AT-6 Texans arrayed in echelon on either side of a B-25, with a lone Texan hanging back in a chase position, presumably to get good film footage and photos of the formation. They were at a lower altitude, maybe 1000 meters at a guess, and not appearing to move that fast, maybe 300 kph?

A minute later, there was a "vic" of three identical fighters with another Texan chase plane trailing behind. Same altitude and roughly same heading as the earlier flight, but moving much faster and further away from me, so I saw them in side profile and couldn't positively identify them from that angle. Definitely looked like liquid cooled engines, since the nose profile was so sleek. My brief look at the profile view made me think of a Spitfire, but I don't think any collector or group in the area has any Spitfire in flying condition, much less three Spitfires. I talked to someone who said that the local division of the CAF has Mustangs, so it was probably P-51 Mustangs. The CAF guys also have Corsairs and other radial engine fighters, but it definitely looked like a liquid cooled engine to me.

Later in the day, there was another flight of maybe 5-6 Texans practicing a kind of loose finger-four formation. I was distracted by something else at the time so I didn't get a good luck at them, but it was probably Texans, because any time the local CAF guys have more than 5 of the same plane in the air, it's probably Texans.

Except for the B-25, I couldn't see what kind of paint jobs any of the warbirds had, as the sun was positioned in such a way that all the planes looked black to me. The B-25 looked like it had red and yellow stripes on the twin tail, and I think the fuselage was bare aluminum rather than painted in any camo.

Maybe all prop planes sound the same from far away, but I almost missed seeing some of those flyovers since they all sounded the same as any civilian plane from a distance, just with more engines in the sky at one time.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 12, 2020)

Avro Canada Arrow, the most technologically impressive fighter jet of the 1950’s. It had a early form of Fly-By-Wire and Missiles were stored in the fuselage like the F-35.


----------



## Merried Senior Comic (Jul 13, 2020)

Cedric_Eff said:


> Avro Canada Arrow, the most technologically impressive fighter jet of the 1950’s. It had a early form of Fly-By-Wire and Missiles were stored in the fuselage like the F-35.


>a fucking leaf plane


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Jul 13, 2020)

Cedric_Eff said:


> Avro Canada Arrow, one of the most technologically impressive impractical and cost ineffective fighter jet boondoggles of the 1950s.


FTFY. The XF-108 was way cooler and would've been significantly more advanced too.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Jul 13, 2020)

Kamov Ka-52 said:


> FTFY. The XF-108 was way cooler and would've been significantly more advanced too.


True, but I love the fact most people who worked on the Arrow ended up working on the Apollo program tho.


----------



## The Dude (Jul 16, 2020)

I will insist until my dying day that the USAF should have selected the YF-23 instead of the F-22. From a few different sources that I've seen researching the subject, many of those involved during the testing of the two planes felt the YF-23 was the superior bird and that the F-22 was chosen for largely political reasons, not because it was the better aircraft. Hopefully when the USAF and USN pick their next air superiority fighters, they actually pick the best one. Not to say that the F-22 is a bad fighter, because it's not. It's a good aircraft.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 16, 2020)

The F-22 won because Lockheed could actually produce them. The political reasons everyone bemoans were mostly due to the fact that Northrop didn't have anything close to the needed factory output to fill the order. On the plus side though, Northrop then helped Lockheed reengineer the YF-22 in to the F-22A we have now and you can see it in a lot of places on the F-22A from the nosecone to the reworked cockpit and the nozzles on the engines. While the F-22 won, it took a lot of the 23's DNA in to the production run and while the YF-22 was inferior to the 23 in a number of ways, those shortcomings were mostly shored up pretty well when it got the rework to be an actual production aircraft.

Still, the 23 is way fucking sexier


----------



## Tour of Italy (Jul 16, 2020)

Does anybody know where I can find more long-form discussions like this?






I like Military Aviation History’s channel, but his videos are often on the short side, and I really enjoyed this style of longer, more in-depth discussions.

The linked video is well worth a watch. There were a couple a neat highlights I’d never come across before:

The A6M was actually a _less _capable dogfighter than its immediate predecesor, but more than made up for that in range and speed.
The focus on shedding weight to augment operational range was so extreme that lead designer Horikoshi made one of his engineers redesign a small part to use a different manufacturing technique just so they could save a few grams.
The US Navy’s emphasis on aerial gunnery training gave it much needed flexibility in facing the Zero. US pilots were better trained to lead targets which opened up angles of attack.
Solar interference (and poor shielding initially) made the weaker Japanese radios nearly useless in the South Pacific, to the point where aircrews often ripped out the equipment entirely. This is compared to German sets which were of similar power but functioned much more effectively in Europe due to solar cycles not having as much of an impact on that part of the globe at the time.
The lack of functioning radios meant that a large percentage of CAP and strike missions were coordinated with hand signals or other modes of communication, which makes the Zero’s superiority in 1942 and relative staying power even beyond that all the more impressive.


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Jul 16, 2020)

Tour of Italy said:


> Does anybody know where I can find more long-form discussions like this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles is a good YouTube channel for technical information about aircraft. He puts in a lot of research in his videos but beware, they can get VERY technical and complex.










Edit:
Here's another good channel: Military Aviation History


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 16, 2020)

Mister Qwerty said:


> Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles is a good YouTube channel for technical information about aircraft. He puts in a lot of research in his videos but beware, they can get VERY technical and complex.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fighter Pilot Podcast and CW Lemoine also have good stuff. I know a few guys that have been guests on both


----------



## MrJokerRager (Jul 28, 2020)

This is now an AN-225 thread.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Jul 30, 2020)




----------



## MrJokerRager (Aug 4, 2020)




----------



## Cedric_Eff (Aug 4, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


>


The C-17’s predecessor the McDonell Douglas YC-15 was designed with short take off and landing in mind.


The Dude said:


> I will insist until my dying day that the USAF should have selected the YF-23 instead of the F-22. From a few different sources that I've seen researching the subject, many of those involved during the testing of the two planes felt the YF-23 was the superior bird and that the F-22 was chosen for largely political reasons, not because it was the better aircraft. Hopefully when the USAF and USN pick their next air superiority fighters, they actually pick the best one. Not to say that the F-22 is a bad fighter, because it's not. It's a good aircraft.


Another thing to note about the YF-23, the lack of thrust vectoring.


----------



## Lonely Grave (Aug 4, 2020)

If you've ever wondered what an old-school Ferrari would look like if it could fly, meet the Reggiane Re.2005, the last in a long line of superb Italian propeller-driven fighters:





On the whole, Italian designs were comparable to the British minus the latter's well-established aircraft industry - highly agile, well-protected, decent armament. The Regia Aeronautica benefited from German engineering like the Daimler-Benz 605 series engines which were a considerable improvement over Italian-made engines and enabled many designs who had fell short of expectations to reach their performance goals with ease.


----------



## The Dude (Aug 4, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


>



C-17 rollin' down the strip. Big iron bird gonna take a little trip.


----------



## bippu_as_fuck_ls400 (Aug 4, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


> This is now an AN-225 thread.



Making a stop in Scotland recently:


----------



## BONE_Buddy (Aug 5, 2020)

Red Flag is back!


----------



## The Dude (Aug 5, 2020)

Since you guys are mitary aircraft buffs, is anyone else a fan of the band Dos Gringos? The two guys who make up the core of the band are both Viper jocks (F16 pilots) who met IIRC during fighter training. While at the O Club one night, listening to some of the older jocks singing some fighter pilot songs, they realized that the "newest" fighter pilot songs had been written during the Vietnam War and that there weren't any songs for their generation of pilots. So they decided that since they both played guitar that they would fix that problem and started making songs that their generation could relate to better (like plane envy, how boring dropping smart munitions can be, your wife/girlfriend spending all your money while you're away on deployment, and finding your wife/girlfriend's vibrator and feeling inadequate). They're a hilarious group with songs full of fighter jargon (especially their early stuff), and they're still both active fighter pilots.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Aug 5, 2020)

Say as you may, thrust vectoring is a crucial air combat tool. It really does change the way air battles are fought.


----------



## TiggerNits (Aug 5, 2020)

Cedric_Eff said:


> Say as you may, thrust vectoring is a crucial air combat tool. It really does change the way air battles are fought.



It's more crucial to AAMs than the fighters themselves in a fluid tactical environment. If we're talking pure sport BFM though, you're probably right


----------



## MrJokerRager (Aug 6, 2020)




----------



## MrJokerRager (Aug 9, 2020)

Its not a health risk preparing food with bare hands?


----------



## BONE_Buddy (Aug 9, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


> Its not a health risk preparing food with bare hands?


small kitchen, fixing small batches of cooked food.

So long as they aren't cross contaminating the raw with the cooked, and cleaning work surfaces, they should be fine.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Aug 13, 2020)

How come the US Air Force doesn't use the F-16D like they do with the F-15E?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## The Dude (Aug 13, 2020)

I've been kind of on a cyberpunk kick lately waiting for the game Cyberpunk 2077 to finally release (though I've always been a big fan of the genre), and it's got me wondering when/if some of the more realistic aircraft designs might become reality. For those who don't know, it's really common to see VTOL aorcraft with tilt-rotors/tilt-jets, ducted fans, quadcopters, etc. in the cyberpunk genre. I know there's the V-22 Osprey that's in service, STOVL aircraft like the F-35B, and the Bell V-280 Valor that's competing for the US Army's Future Vertical Lift selection, but it just seems to me that VTOL aircraft are really useful and versatile, yet they aren't getting the kind of R&D that they should. I mean, an aircraft the size of a C-130 that's capable of taking off and landing where a traditional cargo plane simply couldn't seems like a no-brainer to me. Am I alone here?


----------



## BScCollateral (Aug 13, 2020)

The Dude said:


> I mean, an aircraft the size of a C-130 that's capable of taking off and landing where a traditional cargo plane simply couldn't seems like a no-brainer to me. Am I alone here?



The basic problem with vertical lift is it requires about 5-10x the thrust of a horizontal takeoff. Once you get the bird in the air and convert to horizontal flight, you'll never throttle much above 10%. So VTOL is very useful, but at the same time it wastes a lot of power. 

I suspect we'll eventually see a VTOL Hercules class cargo bird, as a subclass of a HOTOL aircraft, which will greatly outclass the VTOL version in range, and/or payload.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Aug 16, 2020)




----------



## MrJokerRager (Sep 1, 2020)

The Royal Air Force had great camouflages. I swear paint jobs are like half the work of making a great air force. Like the Red Baron in World War sporting the full all red look. These camoflauges need to make a comeback as the current RAF is fully cucked and just another division of the USAF these days rather than creating their own jets. What happened to British aviation that they don't make their own planes no more?


----------



## millais (Sep 1, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


> The Royal Air Force had great camouflages. I swear paint jobs are like half the work of making a great air force. Like the Red Baron in World War sporting the full all red look. These camoflauges need to make a comeback as the current RAF is fully cucked and just another division of the USAF these days rather than creating their own jets. What happened to British aviation that they don't make their own planes no more?
> 
> View attachment 1563332
> 
> View attachment 1563333


I like the mid-to-late war RAF blue-green patterns better. It makes the yellow and red highlights around the wing-mounted guns pop out more. Feels like as the war dragged on, you go from the bright green-brown pattern to the desaturated and almost greyish blue-green, as if the war-weariness is seeping into the color palette.

In the First World War, I think it is hard to beat the late-1918 Jagdstaffeln's color schemes. Each Jasta had its own distinct color scheme, but even within each Jasta, there was a lot of individual customization and unique takes on the standard Jasta pattern by the individual pilots. With only a few exceptions, I think pretty much all the pilots who chose to customize their paint scheme beyond the basic Jasta standard came up with visually striking and aesthetically pleasing designs. The sharp clean lines and high contrasts in colors reminds me of the design aesthetic in some parts of the German Expressionist movement.

I think the single, solid color patterns like von Richtofen's all-red Albatrosen and Fokker or Goering's all-white Fokker are pretty visually uninteresting though.


----------



## Kornheiser (Sep 1, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


> The Royal Air Force had great camouflages. I swear paint jobs are like half the work of making a great air force. Like the Red Baron in World War sporting the full all red look. These camoflauges need to make a comeback as the current RAF is fully cucked and just another division of the USAF these days rather than creating their own jets. What happened to British aviation that they don't make their own planes no more?
> 
> View attachment 1563332
> 
> View attachment 1563333


The Comet disasters and bad management from both private industry to state owned brought the death of British aircraft industry. BAE has some planes but it’s just trainers and business jets.


----------



## bippu_as_fuck_ls400 (Sep 3, 2020)




----------



## Mister Qwerty (Sep 3, 2020)




----------



## Sexual Chocolate (Sep 3, 2020)

Kornheiser said:


> The Comet disasters and bad management from both private industry to state owned brought the death of British aircraft industry. BAE has some planes but it’s just trainers and business jets.



Tbf, it was probably gonna happen anyway. Fast jets cost orders of magnitude more to develop, build and maintain than they did in the mid-20th century, take decades instead of months to develop, and the Cold War has been over for 30 years so air forces have been shrinking. Not many countries maintain indigenous high-end military aircraft industries anymore because it doesn't make sense to do that unless you can guarantee a steady stream of orders to keep the production line going and offset some of the R&D costs.

Russia and China are building their own jets for obvious political reasons, but Russia can barely afford to buy its own new planes. France spent €45Bn to develop the Rafale, out of stubbornness and national pride, but it's not obviously better than the Eurofighter and worse than the F-35, and they're basically having to suck India's dick for foreign orders to keep production going. Sweden has the Gripen, which seems to be a great little plane for countries that can't afford or don't need the best military hardware, but probably not relevant to major NATO members.

Even the USAF couldn't afford to order more than 187 F-22's after all the time and money that went into that program, and the future of military aviation looks like this anyway:





Engineering will always be important but the next big jump in aerial combat capability will be based on software engineering. Instead of the RAF only having 138 F-35's and 147 Eurofighters, with pilots who cost millions and years to train for a short career, what if they could afford 5,000 armed drones that can make decisions independently or collectively, almost at the speed of light, are politically expendable, and can be deployed at any moment as quickly as someone can press a button on a keyboard?

Lockheed Martin and BAE will still want to sell big ticket items to tame politicians and staff officers, but there's no real reason why drone swarms need to be composed of expensive high-end models. Smaller companies can get into this market too, and maybe we'll see a return to the mid-20th century situation where there were lots of different aviation firms competing.


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Sep 3, 2020)

Sexual Chocolate said:


> Tbf, it was probably gonna happen anyway. Fast jets cost orders of magnitude more to develop, build and maintain than they did in the mid-20th century, take decades instead of months to develop, and the Cold War has been over for 30 years so air forces have been shrinking. Not many countries maintain indigenous high-end military aircraft industries anymore because it doesn't make sense to do that unless you can guarantee a steady stream of orders to keep the production line going and offset some of the R&D costs.
> 
> Russia and China are building their own jets for obvious political reasons, but Russia can barely afford to buy its own new planes. France spent €45Bn to develop the Rafale, out of stubbornness and national pride, but it's not obviously better than the Eurofighter and worse than the F-35, and they're basically having to suck India's dick for foreign orders to keep production going. Sweden has the Gripen, which seems to be a great little plane for countries that can't afford or don't need the best military hardware, but probably not relevant to major NATO members.
> 
> ...



I’m not sure the the US companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman are capable of making cheap drones. They gotta be big, bleeding-edge high-tech and expensive because every congressman and senator wants a piece of the pie and all those manufacturing jobs their states (don't know about spy agencies like the CIA).


----------



## MrJokerRager (Sep 7, 2020)

The Su-34 is an oddball of the Su-27 family and has great aesthetic to it.


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Sep 8, 2020)

TiggerNits said:


> Fighter Pilot Podcast and CW Lemoine also have good stuff. I know a few guys that have been guests on both


You may enjoy the Aircrew Interview channel.


----------



## TiggerNits (Sep 8, 2020)

3119967d0c said:


> You may enjoy the Aircrew Interview channel.


I've listened to it.  I kinda hate it because the euro pilots he interviews are extremely boring and wooden.


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Sep 9, 2020)

TiggerNits said:


> I've listened to it.  I kinda hate it because the euro pilots he interviews are extremely boring and wooden.


They aren't all Europeans, you know. Plenty of Yanks. Jeff Guinn (who he talks to about the F-111) and Bruce Gordan (about the Convair Century-series planes) are especially good. That said, the interviews with John Hutchinson and Dennis Brooks might be peppy enough for you.


----------



## Cedric_Eff (Sep 9, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


> What happened to British aviation that they don't make their own planes no more?


Multiple factors:
1) An attempt to consolidate the British aerospace sector into one nationalized company has led to a massive quality drop.
2) Due to said quality drop, they use other European collaborators to create more planes.
3) Dependance on European partners to produce aircrafts has led to a significant decline to the ability to produce domestically made aircraft.
4) France.


----------



## Doctor Placebo (Sep 10, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


> The Royal Air Force had great camouflages. I swear paint jobs are like half the work of making a great air force. Like the Red Baron in World War sporting the full all red look. These camoflauges need to make a comeback as the current RAF is fully cucked and just another division of the USAF these days rather than creating their own jets. What happened to British aviation that they don't make their own planes no more?
> 
> View attachment 1563332
> 
> View attachment 1563333


Now that you mention it, green camo in the sky doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Wouldn't it be much better to have some sort of white and light blue camo scheme? Something that resembles sky and clouds? How come nobody ever does that?


----------



## TiggerNits (Sep 10, 2020)

Doctor Placebo said:


> Now that you mention it, green camo in the sky doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Wouldn't it be much better to have some sort of white and light blue camo scheme? Something that resembles sky and clouds? How come nobody ever does that?


It's for when they're parked. On the ground. Where they're the most vulnerable


----------



## MrJokerRager (Sep 10, 2020)

Doctor Placebo said:


> Now that you mention it, green camo in the sky doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Wouldn't it be much better to have some sort of white and light blue camo scheme? Something that resembles sky and clouds? How come nobody ever does that?


The Russians use that camouflage.


----------



## Doctor Placebo (Sep 10, 2020)

MrJokerRager said:


> The Russians use that camouflage.












I think I'm a fan.


----------



## TiggerNits (Sep 10, 2020)

Doctor Placebo said:


> View attachment 1585694
> View attachment 1585701
> View attachment 1585709
> I think I'm a fan.



It really doesn't blend as well as you'd think when it's moving. There's a reason that most aircraft deployed in to combat zones are the same dull gray color. It works in every environment, though some are much better than others (Over water, in hazy locales, over urban places and any time where there's significant loss of light like nighttime, dawn, dusk, cloudy/foggy) and it's very easy to maintain on planes, because paint comes off of planes performing at speeds above 400kts and pulling multiple Gs without much trouble


----------



## TiggerNits (Sep 23, 2020)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yw8g1Soigk
		


Fun youtube on an ejection seat alternative we used in the 60s


----------



## bippu_as_fuck_ls400 (Sep 23, 2020)

I know the thread is mostly fixed wing stuff, but I found this recent episode of the Fighter Pilot Podcast pretty interesting:





It's an aircraft that doesn't get much hype or publicity.


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Sep 26, 2020)

McDonnell XF-85 Goblin


----------



## millais (Sep 27, 2020)

Some years ago, I was doing some freelance work for an unifinished RTS game that featured the X-85 as a smaller air unit which deployed from a bigger air unit.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Oct 18, 2020)

Found this footage of what it was like bombing Nazis and Japs.






A squad of F-16s taking off.


----------



## bippu_as_fuck_ls400 (Nov 1, 2020)




----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Nov 2, 2020)

The XB-70 gets moved outside briefly while exhibits are rearranged.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Nov 9, 2020)




----------



## Mister Qwerty (May 23, 2021)




----------



## TiggerNits (May 23, 2021)

Your browser is not able to display this video.







Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## MrJokerRager (May 23, 2021)

I watched this movie recently and upon a closer look, the BF109s were apparently repainted P-40 fighters. And the Spits were probably the versions 2 and beyond. I guess the Mosquito and Beaufighter came way later down the road.


----------



## The Un-Clit (May 23, 2021)

Dat XB-70....It's a real shame it never went into production.  One thing I recently noticed.....take away the long front tube with the canards and the plane is really a flying wing design, like the B2!     They are totally different aircraft, of course. The B2 was designed for stealth over speed, and certainly didn't have all those monster engines blazing away like little suns and pushing it to mach 3 speed. The Valkyrie was about as un-stealthy as you can get.

But it's interesting, lifting body/flying wing tech is older in US bombers then most people think, especially since all the preliminary work on the concept was done in Nazi Germany.


----------



## Poppavalyim Andropoff (May 23, 2021)

Fighters went downhill when they stopped naming them cool things like Spitfire & putting things like Jericho horns on them


----------



## Car Won't Crank (May 23, 2021)

Gotta say I really like the design philosophies that went into some Russian/Soviet era fighters. The MIG-29 with the active air intake shutter and beefy landing gear for those rough and unpaved runways is just great design. I believe the Gripen was also designed with that feature or as an option.


----------



## TiggerNits (May 23, 2021)

Car Won't Crank said:


> Gotta say I really like the design philosophies that went into some Russian/Soviet era fighters. The MIG-29 with the active air intake shutter and beefy landing gear for those rough and unpaved runways is just great design. I believe the Gripen was also designed with that feature or as an option.


I'm saying this as a former harrier guy, but planning to suck so bad you lose your runways is a bad starting place for designing a fucking airplane


----------



## BScCollateral (May 23, 2021)

TiggerNits said:


> I'm saying this as a former harrier guy, but planning to suck so bad you lose your runways is a bad starting place for designing a fucking airplane


One bit that frequently goes unmentioned is the Soviet Union had two separate air forces, the VVS (Air Force) and the PVO (Air Defense Force), with two different missions. The PVO was essentially designed around the assumption they would be fighting a protracted war from damaged airfields. 

The head-scratcher here is that the MiG-29 was fielded by the VVS, not the PVO. I don't know much about this, but I can't help but wonder if the MiG-29 had some features designed to appeal to the PVO even though it was ultimately a VVS machine.


----------



## TiggerNits (May 23, 2021)

BScCollateral said:


> One bit that frequently goes unmentioned is the Soviet Union had two separate air forces, the VVS (Air Force) and the PVO (Air Defense Force), with two different missions. The PVO was essentially designed around the assumption they would be fighting a protracted war from damaged airfields.
> 
> The head-scratcher here is that the MiG-29 was fielded by the VVS, not the PVO. I don't know much about this, but I can't help but wonder if the MiG-29 had some features designed to appeal to the PVO even though it was ultimately a VVS machine.


It was made for 2 purposes, one to fight the F-15 and F-16 and the other was to sell to allies who had really shit-tier airfield and airframe maintenance once they ran their 21s and 23s in to the ground. Supposedly though, in the early 80s the Soviet procurement system had a hate-boner for MiG and were actively sending their better turbine and avionics guys to Sukoi and Tupalev


----------



## Mister Qwerty (May 23, 2021)

MrJokerRager said:


> I watched this movie recently and upon a closer look, the BF109s were apparently repainted P-40 fighters. And the Spits were probably the versions 2 and beyond. I guess the Mosquito and Beaufighter came way later down the road.


The Bf 109’s in that movie were actually a Spanish version of the 109 with Hispano-Suiza engines (although I believe the fighters in the movie were powered with Rolls-Royce engines), which is why they look a little off.  A couple of them were also painted to look like Hawker Hurricanes as they didn’t have enough flyable versions for the film. The Heinkel He 111 bombers were also Spanish.


----------



## Car Won't Crank (May 23, 2021)

TiggerNits said:


> I'm saying this as a former harrier guy, but planning to suck so bad you lose your runways is a bad starting place for designing a fucking airplane


I don't think the plane was built around that feature considering how agile it is in the air. Rough runway capabilities just extends the plane's scope of operation in war time, like the venerable C-130. The 737-200 also had an option for rough runways and the newly produced Pilatus PC-24 is also rated for gravel type bush landings.


----------



## Bowl of Ramen (May 23, 2021)

Car Won't Crank said:


> I don't think the plane was built around that feature considering how agile it is in the air. Rough runway capabilities just extends the plane's scope of operation in war time, like the venerable C-130. The 737-200 also had an option for rough runways and the newly produced Pilatus PC-24 is also rated for gravel type bush landings.


I feel like we should have a general aviation sperg thread (not just military), but since you mentioned the 732, here’s a video of the 732’s gravel kit in action.  Nolinor’s birds are fantastic.  Have had the privilege of seeing their kitted 732, albeit not in action.


----------



## Mister Qwerty (May 26, 2021)

Payen Pa 49


----------



## MrJokerRager (Jun 7, 2021)

F-16 is so kwai. And I wonder how come the USAF hasn't adopted the latest F-16 block series or the D version.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jun 7, 2021)

MrJokerRager said:


> F-16 is so kwai. And I wonder how come the USAF hasn't adopted the latest F-16 block series or the D version.


Strike Eagles do the strike mission better, older F16s are much lighter, faster and more nimble in BFM with the same weapons available.

Really the newer blocks are a downgrade to our Air Force because the only thing they'd offer if extended range, but we have enough aerial tankers to make it a moot point


----------



## Mr. Skeltal (Jun 7, 2021)

MrJokerRager said:


> F-16 is so kwai. And I wonder how come the USAF hasn't adopted the latest F-16 block series or the D version.


The F-16 will always be the first love for me. I used to fix their engines, a shame that the airframes in service now are as good as they're gonna get. That said, a lot of what we had to do to make some of the old vipers fly was kinda nutty. We're talking canning enough shit out of the one Red X shop queen to hollow it out because some of the OEMs don't exist anymore and none of the existing contractors make parts that analog. It takes a long time for the boneyard special to show up at LRS so better to reuse what you have from an already stricken aircraft.

As to why we don't buy new ones? I think it was sunk-cost thinking and tunnel-vision on the JSF program. Don't get me wrong, I think the F-35A is a great plane for BVR engagements and standoff engagements of SAM/AA sites but it is no viper. They have a charm and a mission but I can't help feeling bittersweet about it all. I had to retrain when the vipers left for the 35s and like fuck was I going to get lumped in with the AMXS boys in that new-fangled 2A3X7 AFS. Staying on the component side of MXG was a good decision even if it meant having to go back to Sheppard.


----------



## Pocket Dragoon (Jul 21, 2021)

Russia unveils the Sukhoi Su-75 "Checkmate"


> "Russia has unveiled the Sukhoi Checkmate, a new fifth-generation fighter jet intended to supplement the Su-57 and conquer the international market.  A mockup of the aircraft was presented in a grand ceremony on the opening day of the MAKS airshow in Moscow on July 20, 2021.
> 
> “We have been working on the project for just slightly longer than one year. Such a fast development cycle was possible only with the help of advanced computer technologies and virtual testing,” Yuri Slyusar, CEO of United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), said at the event.
> 
> ...


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 21, 2021)

Pocket Dragoon said:


> Russia unveils the Sukhoi Su-75 "Checkmate"


Looks cool. Sukhoi makes good shit, so it will probably be a good peer to hopefully kickstart the US in to making a greatly upgraded F-35 block


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Jul 21, 2021)




----------



## Sexual Chocolate (Jul 21, 2021)

Pocket Dragoon said:


> Russia unveils the Sukhoi Su-75 "Checkmate"


This looks awesome, but Checkmate is a dorky name to give a fighter plane. They need to give it a badass name, such as the Thunderhawk, or the Imperial Eagle


----------



## Pocket Dragoon (Jul 21, 2021)

Sexual Chocolate said:


> This looks awesome, but Checkmate is a dorky name to give a fighter plane. They need to give it a badass name, such as the Thunderhawk, or the Imperial Eagle


I think the alternative is "Screamer", maybe an odd Slavic translation.

These guys run all the newest stuff through DCS. I'm curious to see how quickly the Su-57 will get modeled.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 22, 2021)

Pocket Dragoon said:


> I think the alternative is "Screamer", maybe an odd Slavic translation.
> 
> These guys run all the newest stuff through DCS. I'm curious to see how quickly the Su-57 will get modeled.


The reapers are the biggest fucking jokes. They all try to act like old school fighter pilots and not a single one of them understands anything about aviation that can't be gleaned from a 20 minute podcast. Their tutorial videos for DCS are hysterical because the entire time they're correcting themselves after doing something wrong


----------



## Lieutenant Rasczak (Jul 22, 2021)

I'll be honest, the YF-23 Black Widow II is my favorite 5th Generation Fighter because the airframe is beautiful.  Too bad it never saw service because it just had to be less practical than the F-22 Raptor.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jul 22, 2021)

Lieutenant Rasczak said:


> I'll be honest, the YF-23 Black Widow II is my favorite 5th Generation Fighter because the airframe is beautiful.  Too bad it never saw service because it just had to be less practical than the F-22 Raptor.
> View attachment 2371917


I've stated this itt, but if you look at the F22A compared to the YF22, you realize they paid Northrop a lot of money to borrow their better ideas


----------



## bippu_as_fuck_ls400 (Oct 28, 2021)

Nice backdrop for the show:







> Fliegerschiessen at Axalp is an airshow where Swiss F/A-18 Hornets and formerly F-5E Tiger jets practice target shooting with live ammunition. The demo takes place every year in October.


----------



## The Un-Clit (Oct 28, 2021)

bippu_as_fuck_ls400 said:


> Nice backdrop for the show:


Nice footage of the Hornets, but I really love me my F-5Es. I just noticed you said formerly, so no point in asking if there was footage of them, but mebbe I will check the YouTubes for previous years. Thanks!


----------



## MrJokerRager (Jan 28, 2022)

This is a great trailer for the F-4 Phantom.


----------



## The Un-Clit (Jan 28, 2022)

The US is really missing out on not taking the F-14 Super Tomcat.  This plane can provide naval force projection FAR beyond what the accepted Navalized F-18 can provide against Russia or China. But what can I do? A buyer for the USAF I am not.  *EDIT*  *Drunkposted, plz to not hold against.*


----------



## TiggerNits (Jan 29, 2022)

The Un-Clit said:


> The US is really missing out on not taking the F-14 Super Tomcat.  This plane can provide naval force projection FAR beyond what the accepted Navalized F-18 can provide against Russia or China. But what can I do? A buyer for the USAF I am not.


How did you find a way to post on here from 1999?


----------



## The Un-Clit (Jan 29, 2022)

TiggerNits said:


> How did you find a way to post on here from 1999?


I posted this last night? what the fuck??  Was I a lot more drunk then I thought??

Agreed, the time for a super tomcat is long over,but it would have been a FUCK of a lot better then the super hornet ended up being.


----------



## Buttigieg2020 (Mar 15, 2022)

Mr. Skeltal said:


> The F-16 will always be the first love for me. I used to fix their engines, a shame that the airframes in service now are as good as they're gonna get. That said, a lot of what we had to do to make some of the old vipers fly was kinda nutty. We're talking canning enough shit out of the one Red X shop queen to hollow it out because some of the OEMs don't exist anymore and none of the existing contractors make parts that analog. It takes a long time for the boneyard special to show up at LRS so better to reuse what you have from an already stricken aircraft.
> 
> As to why we don't buy new ones? I think it was sunk-cost thinking and tunnel-vision on the JSF program. Don't get me wrong, I think the F-35A is a great plane for BVR engagements and standoff engagements of SAM/AA sites but it is no viper. They have a charm and a mission but I can't help feeling bittersweet about it all. I had to retrain when the vipers left for the 35s and like fuck was I going to get lumped in with the AMXS boys in that new-fangled 2A3X7 AFS. Staying on the component side of MXG was a good decision even if it meant having to go back to Sheppard.


Apparently they’re going to try and squeeze more life out of them yet.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Mar 15, 2022)

Kind of a general take but I think a lot of countries are way over-focusing on stealth technology.  Assuming a detection system is developed which does not rely on sending out radio waves and then picking up on the ones that bounce back, stealth aircraft could become effectively worthless overnight.  Keep in mind that not only has a ton of money been spent on stealth tech, a lot of the new generation 5 fighters have greatly sacrificed performance in other aspects in order to accommodate them being stealthy.  Something I was thinking that fits the bill of a stealth defeating technology would be a detection system that detects micro alterations to the Earth's natural magnetic field to detect aircraft.  This is not at all something far-fetched since while it is in its infancy currently, such technology does already exist.  Who knows whether or not a country is actually working on this, but if a rando on the internet like myself thought of it, there's a fair chance that some expert military engineer has also thought of it.


----------



## The Un-Clit (Mar 15, 2022)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Kind of a general take but I think a lot of countries are way over-focusing on stealth technology.  Assuming a detection system is developed which does not rely on sending out radio waves and then picking up on the ones that bounce back, stealth aircraft could become effectively worthless overnight.  Keep in mind that not only has a ton of money been spent on stealth tech, a lot of the new generation 5 fighters have greatly sacrificed performance in other aspects in order to accommodate them being stealthy.  Something I was thinking that fits the bill of a stealth defeating technology would be a detection system that detects micro alterations to the Earth's natural magnetic field to detect aircraft.  This is not at all something far-fetched since while it is in its infancy currently, such technology does already exist.  Who knows whether or not a country is actually working on this, but if a rando on the internet like myself thought of it, there's a fair chance that some expert military engineer has also thought of it.


I think you are quite right. It has made me shake my head for years how all the 5th gen 'stealth fighters' (and of course the original one, the Wobblin' Goblin F-117)  have terrible performance as actual combat aircraft compared to 4th and 4.5th gen fighter aircraft. Even without the statistical differences alone, I've seen some carefully modelled simulations with accurate flight and weapons charactaristics where planes like the Saab Gripen completely outperform and shoot down 9 out of 10 times 5th gen aircraft, even the mighty F-22 once in combat range.  

The F-35 in particular is a fantastic stealth weapons delivery and networked warfare system, but as a fighter jet it sucks. If stealth is defeated by a new tech like you mention, it's going to become a VERY expensive sitting duck that will have to hide behind a fighter cover of F-15s, F-16s and F-18s to do it's job in a combat zone.


----------



## TiggerNits (Mar 15, 2022)

The Un-Clit said:


> I think you are quite right. It has made me shake my head for years how all the 5th gen 'stealth fighters' (and of course the original one, the Wobblin' Goblin F-117)  have terrible performance as actual combat aircraft compared to 4th and 4.5th gen fighter aircraft. Even without the statistical differences alone, I've seen some carefully modelled simulations with accurate flight and weapons charactaristics where planes like the Saab Gripen completely outperform and shoot down 9 out of 10 times 5th gen aircraft, even the mighty F-22 once in combat range.
> 
> The F-35 in particular is a fantastic stealth weapons delivery and networked warfare system, but as a fighter jet it sucks. If stealth is defeated by a new tech like you mention, it's going to become a VERY expensive sitting duck that will have to hide behind a fighter cover of F-15s, F-16s and F-18s to do it's job in a combat zone.


Not really. The 35A has been brutalizing Vipers and Hornets over Goldwater for a few years now, the B is better than the harrier in every meaningful way and the C seems to be able to handle itself very well in BFM and BVR while having really good tactical integration in to the CAG when it is supporting super bugs and being supported by the Growler. Yeah, none of them are going to reliably beat F-22s or single seat eagles reliably, but those are pure fighters, the 35 is a strike fighter meant to operate in contested airspace, not a bomb truck like the B-1 or A-10 or CAS wagon like every attack helo thats going to spend 99% of its combat time in the relative comfort of outright air supremacy.

In reality the 35 has just been a popular target for corporate backed hit pieces in defense journals and newspapers for decades. But I have yet to meet a single pilot with significant time in the airframe that has anything bad to say about it.


----------



## Buttigieg2020 (Mar 15, 2022)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Kind of a general take but I think a lot of countries are way over-focusing on stealth technology.  Assuming a detection system is developed which does not rely on sending out radio waves and then picking up on the ones that bounce back, stealth aircraft could become effectively worthless overnight.  Keep in mind that not only has a ton of money been spent on stealth tech, a lot of the new generation 5 fighters have greatly sacrificed performance in other aspects in order to accommodate them being stealthy.  Something I was thinking that fits the bill of a stealth defeating technology would be a detection system that detects micro alterations to the Earth's natural magnetic field to detect aircraft.  This is not at all something far-fetched since while it is in its infancy currently, such technology does already exist.  Who knows whether or not a country is actually working on this, but if a rando on the internet like myself thought of it, there's a fair chance that some expert military engineer has also thought of it.


Infrared imaging is already used to beat stealth, but it is range limited and there is apparently a counter to that already. 



 There is a reason why everyone is going in on stealth. (Or at least low observability) Any really precise alternative detection method is likely to get a lot of false positives.


----------



## Mr. Skeltal (Mar 15, 2022)

Buttigieg2020 said:


> Infrared imaging is already used to beat stealth, but it is range limited and there is apparently a counter to that already.
> View attachment 3075111
> View attachment 3075122
> There is a reason why everyone is going in on stealth. (Or at least low observability) Any really precise alternative detection method is likely to get a lot of false positives.


No gonna lie, the F-117 looks rad as all hell in a reflective LO coating. 

Relating to it, I wonder if it doesn't work like a dichroic mirror, allowing radar through to be attenuated by the more traditional stealthing while scattering infrared light.


----------



## Cats (Mar 15, 2022)

i remember hearing about the bottoms of planes/drones covered in super thin video screen panels that play the live feed from hd cameras on top of the craft pointing upward at the sky, so that the whole bottom of the craft blends seamlessly into the surroundings...that mirror reflection coating could be something simian to that


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Mar 16, 2022)

Then…






Spoiler: … and now.

















Spoiler: Oy veh!


----------



## MrJokerRager (Mar 16, 2022)

Mister Qwerty said:


> Then…
> 
> View attachment 3076834
> 
> ...



Thoughts on this meme, that I found from the Russian chans lol.


----------



## The Un-Clit (Mar 16, 2022)

Mister Qwerty said:


> Then…
> 
> View attachment 3076834
> 
> ...


LOL Fat.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Jun 5, 2022)

Sometimes I wonder why are they shooting their unguided rockets at the sky and so many flares.





Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## The Un-Clit (Jun 5, 2022)

MrJokerRager said:


> Sometimes I wonder why are they shooting their unguided rockets at the sky and so many flares.
> 
> View attachment 3354623


But then you realize that it's a propaganda shoot not a combat flight shoot, right?

Gotta say for such antiques the Su-25 is still a decent ground attack beast, carries a shit-ton of boom and holds up real well when the only thing your enemies can shoot at you are machine guns, small AA and shoulder-launched SAMs.


----------



## Su-27 Flanker-B (Jun 5, 2022)

F-18 is the prettiest plane americans built after ww2, dont @ me.


----------



## Buttigieg2020 (Jun 6, 2022)

Su-27 Flanker-B said:


> F-18 is the prettiest plane americans built after ww2, dont @ me.


Almost, but not quite


----------



## Car Won't Crank (Jun 6, 2022)

Su-27 Flanker-B said:


> F-18 is the prettiest plane americans built after ww2, dont @ me.


How can you say that when the B-1B Lancer exists?


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Jun 6, 2022)

Su-27 Flanker-B said:


> F-18 is the prettiest plane americans built after ww2, dont @ me.


This was the cutest.


----------



## Screamer (Jun 6, 2022)

Mister Qwerty said:


> Then…
> 
> View attachment 3076834
> 
> ...




WTF have they done to it? Is it a different engine, or something else?


----------



## Su-27 Flanker-B (Jun 6, 2022)

Buttigieg2020 said:


> Almost, but not quite
> View attachment 3357428


Its like retarded cousin of a plane 


Car Won't Crank said:


> How can you say that when the B-1B Lancer exists?
> View attachment 3357445


Close but not quite


Mister Qwerty said:


> This was the cutest.
> View attachment 3357455


Naaah


----------



## CyberGoyim (Jun 6, 2022)

Su-27 Flanker-B said:


> Its like retarded cousin of a plane
> 
> Close but not quite
> 
> Naaah


You know that's a picture of Su-35S Flanker-E right？




(More precisely, Su-35S Flanker-E red 52 RF-81719 on Teknofest 2019)


----------



## JustSomeDong (Jun 6, 2022)

独人13 said:


> You know that's a picture of Su-35S Flanker-E right？
> View attachment 3357610
> (More precisely, Su-35S Flanker-E red 52 RF-81719 on Teknofest 2019)


Say what you want about the Russkies, but they sure build 'em pretty.


----------



## Su-27 Flanker-B (Jun 6, 2022)

独人13 said:


> You know that's a picture of Su-35S Flanker-E right？
> View attachment 3357610
> (More precisely, Su-35S Flanker-E red 52 RF-81719 on Teknofest 2019)


Idk, I googled it and it was the best picture to fit in the avatar. If you have an image of Su-27 in a 10:10 resolution I will accept it.

ETA most people dont know the difference anyway. They cant differentiate between Su-27 and Mig-29 and F-15.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jun 6, 2022)

Screamer said:


> WTF have they done to it? Is it a different engine, or something else?


Upgraded avionics and conformal fuel tanks. The sales team call them "Venom sacks" because it's the Viper, but they don't see much use in the US, since we have full tanker support  and don't really need to worry about extending onboard fuel capability outside of drop tanks. 



Su-27 Flanker-B said:


> F-18 is the prettiest plane americans built after ww2, dont @ me.


Saying this after the Tomcat, Aardvark, A-4 and Phantom all clearly exist is bold. Maybe even retarded, but bold none the less


----------



## Su-27 Flanker-B (Jun 6, 2022)

TiggerNits said:


> Saying this after the Tomcat, Aardvark, A-4 and Phantom all clearly exist is bold.


All of which are ugly and overestimated in the looks department. You'd have a case for the Phantom, but the rest looks awful.


----------



## The Un-Clit (Jun 6, 2022)

Su-27 Flanker-B said:


> All of which are ugly and overestimated in the looks department. You'd have a case for the Phantom, but the rest looks awful.


You are dead wrong, mon ami.  I didn't even have to do an image search to find a gorgeous picture of a Tomcat, because there are NO ugly pictures of the Tomcat. The first pic on Wikipedia will do, ffs.


----------



## Su-27 Flanker-B (Jun 6, 2022)

The Un-Clit said:


> You are dead wrong, mon ami.  I didn't even have to do an image search to find a gorgeous picture of a Tomcat, because there are NO ugly pictures of the Tomcat. The first pic on Wikipedia will do, ffs.
> View attachment 3359058


Beauty is in the eye of beholder.


----------



## The Un-Clit (Jun 6, 2022)

Su-27 Flanker-B said:


> Beauty is in the eye of beholder.


Tru dat.




If there is one toy I would geek out on and buy today as an adult, it's the Hasbro GI Joe Tomcat. There is a local toys/collectable store near to me that has multiple F-14s in GI Joe livery, a few aircraft carriers, and a full squad of COBRA-livery painted black A-10 Warthogs, all of which are on display around the top of the interior of the store just below the roof. I am jealous as fuck, and I don't even collect old toys.

( I did have a decent collection of GI Joe toys as a kid though, including the rare COBRA ICBM launcher hauled by a COBRA-painted copy of the GI Joe jeep with ma-deuce mounting.)


----------



## JustSomeDong (Jun 6, 2022)

The Un-Clit said:


> Tru dat.
> View attachment 3359745
> 
> If there is one toy I would geek out on and buy today as an adult, it's the Hasbro GI Joe Tomcat. There is a local toys/collectable store near to me that has multiple F-14s in GI Joe livery, a few aircraft carriers, and a full squad of COBRA-livery painted A-10 II Warthogs, all of which are on display around the top of the interior of the store just below the roof. I am jealous as fuck, and I don't even collect old toys.
> ...


Fuck yeah! Had that GI Joe Tomcat, too!  One of my dad's friends was big time into RC cars and planes. He had an 1/16th scale RC Tomcat and an A-10.  He also had an AH-64. We'd go to a local hobby strip and watch him fly them.  So fucking cool.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jun 6, 2022)

The Un-Clit said:


> Tru dat.
> View attachment 3359745
> 
> If there is one toy I would geek out on and buy today as an adult, it's the Hasbro GI Joe Tomcat. There is a local toys/collectable store near to me that has multiple F-14s in GI Joe livery, a few aircraft carriers, and a full squad of COBRA-livery painted A-10 II Warthogs, all of which are on display around the top of the interior of the store just below the roof. I am jealous as fuck, and I don't even collect old toys.
> ...


I have a sky striker. My goal is to one day make a Flagg in to a wet bar


----------



## RA-5C Vigilante (Jun 7, 2022)

For obvious reasons, one of my faves.


----------



## MrJokerRager (Jun 8, 2022)

Z


----------



## F-35 Lightning II (Jun 8, 2022)

To be honest, the f-35A is probably the most sexy fighter we have right now. WW2 any of the bubble top p47's, but I do love the N.


----------



## Sho'nuff (Jun 8, 2022)

A little disappointed that no one has mentioned the true best looking modern fighter.


----------



## TiggerNits (Jun 8, 2022)

Sho'nuff said:


> A little disappointed that no one has mentioned the true best looking modern fighter.
> 
> View attachment 3365030


Vipers are the definition of generic. It's like a Toyota Corolla with wings.




Nah they're cool. I just like telling the Viper drivers I golf with that to make them mad


----------



## MrJokerRager (Jun 17, 2022)

Well this is the interesting way to catch a drone.





Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## The Un-Clit (Jun 18, 2022)

MrJokerRager said:


> Well this is the interesting way to catch a drone.
> 
> View attachment 3399217


Not much else you can do other then let it crash when the drone is fixed wing with no ability to hover and has no landing gear either.  It seems to work well enough for the Ukrainians.


----------



## Mister Qwerty (Jul 13, 2022)




----------



## ThatsMyDog (Jul 13, 2022)

I wish I could fly the P-40


----------



## Lieutenant Rasczak (Dec 2, 2022)

Speaking of military aircraft, the next generation B-21 Raider is being revealed today.


----------



## Buttigieg2020 (Dec 2, 2022)

Lieutenant Rasczak said:


> Speaking of military aircraft, the next generation B-21 Raider is being revealed today.


That sure is something


----------



## Shadfan666xxx000 (Dec 2, 2022)

Buttigieg2020 said:


> That sure is something
> View attachment 3986628


This is literally a flying saucer.


----------



## BONE_Buddy (Dec 3, 2022)

I will say, the B-21 seems to have had a relatively untroubled development so far. That is in comparison to the more recent aerial acquisitions programs such as the clusterfucks that were/are the V-22, F-35, or the CH-53K. From what I have heard through the grape-vine, the B-21 program seems to be using traditional and effective engineering regime, not whatever the fuck the Nu-Concurrent Engineering regimes used in the building of the Ford Class and all this other shit was/is. So that is promising. 

All that said, this aircraft has not yet even had its first flight. That won't happen for many months, deep next year is likely. At the earliest, it won't deploy until towards the end of the decade. This is not a publicly revealed a few months before bombing Panama situation like with the F-117.

Now that it is moving to flight testing, and final prototyping, it will be interesting to see if this devolves into a shit-show too, or if it bucks the trend.


----------

