/k/ - Weapons

>>524474

sauce on this claim plox

>>524476

>Quick run down

>Syrian S-200 battery fires on an IAF plane that wandered where it shouldn't.

>Israel claims nothing comes from it and proceeds to shitfuck the battery HARD.

>Then, the jews say that one of their F-35s was written off in a "bird-strike" two weeks prior.

>There was no mention of it until the SAM launch; no pictures goy.

>It is of mild note that, the F-35 passed bird-strike rating easily.

http://archive.is/oq33Y

Could be nothing. But I don't believe in such cohencidental timing.

>>524479

Man I wonder what a S-300 will do to one of them birds.

>>524479

Unofficial = old as fuck SA-5 can see F-35.

Official = birds can damage F-35 so bad they need write off (or months of repairs if it surface again).

Pick your poison.

>>524479

So you either spend millions on anti air missiles or just buy a shit ton of pigeons and let them go whenever F35's go on sorties?

>>524499

Cranes, apparently. The Australians are working on anti-land vehicle Emus.

>mig 23 equivalent to f-14

>mig 25 equivalent to f-15

This is why you never win wars anymore, Japan.

>>524476

Well the claim is that two storks hit an Israeli F-35 while it was conducting missions near Syria.

I seriously fucking doubt this story however, especially as Syria came out with the S-200 story before the stork story came out, so they were at least tracking it.

I thought burger jets are old as fugg?

>>524469

How many planes have you shot down Japan? :^)

>>524503

>>mig 23 equivalent to f-14

>>mig 25 equivalent to f-15

>This is why you never win wars anymore, Japan.

This, plus MiG-21 kinda raped F-4, especially if you consider cost-effectiveness.

>>524511

14,533

>>524517

>wait are f-35 even in service yet?

A handful in the USAF, the RAF, the JASDF and the IAF.

Note that only Japan has publicly announced how much money they're setting aside to buy theirs and it's $9,300,000,000 for 42 planes so $220M per plane…

That's their real non-PR, pricetag which fit the "worse case scenario" analysis given almost a decade ago of 1 F-35 = 12 F-16, when it was only supposed to be 1 F-35 = 3 F-16.

>>524522

Daily reminder when Boeing came out with their 28 million dollar price tag, Lockmart ASSURED the reviewers that F-35 would cost no more than $50 million dollars.

>>524524

fuck off storks are our national treasure.

>>524522

so a 220M$ aircraft got fucked up by 60M$ battery from cold war or by 0,01$ ancient bird.

>>524525

TBF, Boeing's price was for a grinning retard. JSF was always a shit idea; perfect only to burn development/procurement dollarydoos.

>>524528

> 0,01$ ancient bird

I am willing to bet a stork costs at least $300 at a pet store.

Local prices for Eagles, Eagle Owls and Macaw Parrots is over $1k.

>>524529

Give it two F414s with flattened nozzles and it would be a very competitive stealth dogfighter.

Chinks and even turkroaches would figure that out it's reasonable to assume that TF-X would be a shameless rip-off of F-35 only with two EJ230s instead.

>>524530

well, you cant really buy storks. maybe you can adopt one thats recovering after an accident if you know right people

>>524469

>>524528

Fuck off, when have poles given a shit about national treasures? All you do is come here and kill our swans to eat because your merkelbux doesn't pay out enough for a £5 ready meal.

>>524469

good jap, worship us.. send us a tribute of 10,000 nipponese virgins with their tubes tied annually, and there won't need to be another fat man.. no badass stripes on your flag, am I clear? red circle only

I don't know anything about planes, but the planes on the right look objectively badass, especially the bottom 3, while the planes on the left look like pieces of garbage

For all the hate the F-35 gets, it's at least saving my hide. I just picked up an IT job at a plant that manufactures parts for a bunch of aircraft and the F-35 contract was probably part of why they were able to hire me on at a really good pay grade.

>>524578

>Arma

wew

>>524594

It would have been cheaper to just give you $50k a year for nothing.

>>524513

to be fair to the f4, it's a multirole fighter bomber, and the mig 21 was a pure fighter.

basically, the f4 was there because no one took vietnam's air force very seriously.

>>524600

>shit on SouthFront a.k.a. the ONLY plance that tries to be a bi-partisan source of info on what is going on in the middle east.

>kikepedia is a sauce.

There 48 MiG-29 in service in the Russian Air Force (20x 9.13, 24x 9.17, 4x 9.61) and 24 in the Navy (20x 9.31, 4x 9.47) no more no less.

It's not a guess, it's not an estimate, everyone knows where they're are based, what are their tail numbers, how many are flying and how regularly.

Pretending otherwise is disinfo, basically EVERYTHING on Wikipedia pertaining to any military outside of the US is bullshit (and even that…).

It's piss easy to found back where this came from (southfront does video reports they include caps of everything).

https://twitter.com/idfspokesperson/statuses/919861839063867394

The Isaraeli stork story being in hebrew I can't be bothered to find it… but it exist in english:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/storks-hit-f-35-sending-stealth-jet-to-garage/

They're clearly minimizing the whole thing but it's a whole news cycle behind the first event (and meant for external consumption), I don't specially trust jews to tell the truth…

>>524600

Russians are dumping their stocks of MiG-29. They're taking a loss on teaser bids to Syria, Iran and Serbia, about five to ten planes each. Once their air forces are trained, they can sell the hook, which would be 50-100 of the jets, and maintenance contracts.

In my opinion Mikoyans medium term strategy is to shift to a maintenance and upgrade business, their long term strategy is to transition to munitions production, design and prototyping business - no jet production. That's the most profitable quarterly return that can save their ass.

>in service

Service isn't just aircraft being used. An aircraft in a hangar, not being used, but still being kept free of elements and at least in theory ready to be used, is still considered in service by any intelligence agency worth its salt. Jets in storage are those not able to be used within a normal readiness period (a few days to a few months depending on country), and they are also classed on the amount of time it takes to bring them into service.

If only jets in use were counted, it would maybe be a few dozen because it's a best practice to limit wear to as few airframes as possible. But if only jets in use were counted as in service then western numbers would plunge severely as well….. out of 200 F-22, how many are regularly flown? I doubt more than a dozen.

>>524633

>>shit on SouthFront a.k.a. the ONLY plance that tries to be a bi-partisan source of info on what is going on in the middle east.

Literally who? Nobody has ever posted that site on this board before, why should any of us trust them?

>>kikepedia is a sauce.

Kikepedia isn't the sauce, the sources in that part of kikepedia are, you dumbass frog.

>There 48 MiG-29 in service in the Russian Air Force (20x 9.13, 24x 9.17, 4x 9.61) and 24 in the Navy (20x 9.31, 4x 9.47) no more no less.

>cries about sources

>doesn't post sources

wew

>They're clearly minimizing the whole thing but it's a whole news cycle behind the first event (and meant for external consumption), I don't specially trust jews to tell the truth…

>IDF story claims a SAM batter failed to hit an aircraft and thus resulted in no damage, but the Syrians claimed it was hit and damaged, and damaged much more than what any sort of birdstrike would cause

>F-35 bird strike story says the aircraft wasn't damaged but was grounded to be inspected regardless

So if the Syrians claim is true then it can't be the F-35 because the F-35 didn't receive damage. That's where this wild assumption falls apart first. Next the assumption falls apart when you look at:

>The birds hit the F-35, called the “Adir” in Hebrew, just before it was due to return to the Nevatim air base in the central Negev desert.

I know us Amerikikes are often laughed at for not knowing geography but the Negev desert is located in southern Israel, and the IDF and Syrians were fighting near the Syrian-Lebanon border, approximately 200+ miles away from the airbase. So somehow if the Syrian story and the assumption in this thread is true, this F-35 got hit by a SAM, suffered damage, but limped back to an airbase 200 miles away without incident?

>>524652

>Literally who? Nobody has ever posted that site on this board before, why should any of us trust them?

Where the fuck did you fly in from?

>>524682

>>524700

No arguments, as expected. I've been here on this /k/ since its founding and nobody has ever posted a link from that website.

>hurr durr just trust them goyim

>>524728

h t t p s ://8ch.net/search.php?search=southfront&board=k

>>524729

Why the fuck are you spacing out https for? If you link to our board it's not going to matter in regards to anything involving privacy. Also

>only 10 results

>out of all of them that link none of them exist before May of this year

Again, why should we trust them? Simply claiming they're "red pilled" doesn't make them trustworthy.

>>524731

>I've been here on this /k/ since its founding and nobody has ever posted a link from that website.

>>out of all of them that link none of them exist before May of this year

And no matter how many anons here say they've used that site, you'll never concede because no-one is autistic enough to record every instance of it being linked just for the possibility of referencing them in anonymous arguments.

>>524733

Regardless the question still stands as to why anybody should trust them and why. Also adding onto some questionable assumptions they make in their article:

>Thus, according to the Israeli version, the warplane reportedly became no longer operational after the bird collision despite the fact that the F-35 earlier passed the bird strike certification with great results

The F-35 involved in the bird strike was never claimed to be put out of operation, they simply grounded it for inspection. If an outlet like this can't even discern between being out of operation and being inspected on the ground why should I or anybody trust them?

>>524731

>Nobody has ever posted that site on this board before

>I've been here on this /k/ since its founding and nobody has ever posted a link from that website.

>only 10 results

It's time to stop.

You really can't salvage this.

For future reference southfront, globalsecurity, and stratfor are all valid sources. They all have their inherent biases, as some are composed of ex-military people we can't all be planeman tier autists they still have loyalties to certain countries, but they're all valid if you take that into account.

>>524728

kys yourself faggot

>>524651

>They're taking a loss

no theyare not, they are investing normally. you think its possible to bring in profit without putting money in?

>>524469

Now tell me about the newest plane.

>>524744

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

FOR SIX YEARS THIS STUPID PIECE OF SHIT MEME HAS BEEN POSTED 24/7, ONLY THIS BOARD CAN BE THIS AUTISTIC. I HOPE THE FUCKING MODS PERMABAN ALL OF YOU FAGGOTS, GO MAKE YOUR OWN STUPID BOARD AND CALL IT 'LE EPIC BANE CHAN'. IT'S PROBABLY THE MOST RETARDED THING IVE EVER SEEN ON THE INTERNET, I ACTUALLY FEEL SAD FOR YOU PEOPLE THAT ARE SO AUTISTIC THAT YOU POST THIS THINKING THAT YOU'RE FUNNY, 'LOLOLOLO LOOOK AT ME IM LE CIA XDDDD SO EPIC EPIC FOR THE WIN EPIC MAYMAY' /v/ IS A FUCKING SHITHOLE IM SICK OF YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS POSTING THIS STUPID ASS MEME 24/7 FUCK OFF U FUCKING FAGGOTS STOP POSTING THAT STUPID CIA AGENT AND THE OTHER ASS BANE, 6 YEARS, 6 FUCKING YEARS POSTING THE SAME SHIT, NOT EVERY WEEK BUT EVERY HOUR, EVERY HOUR THERE'S A BANE THREAD, ON EVERY BOARD OF 4CHAN, U FUCKING AUTISTS, IVE NEVER SUCH SUCH HIGH LEVELS OF AUTISM, THIS BOARD IS MORE AUTISTIC THAN ALL THE OTHER BOARDS COMBINED, THE DARK KNIGHT SUCKS DICK AND SO DOES YOUR WORTHLESS LITTLE BOARD, I BET YOUR DICKLETS START TINGLING WHEN YOU POST SOMETHING ABOUT BANE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT FAGGOTS? I BET THAT YOU GET SOME SEXUAL STIMULATION FROM UPLOADING A PICTURE OF BANE TO YOUR BOARD HUH? I BET THAT YOU MASTURBATE TO THE THOUGHT OF GETTING FUCKED BY THE ACTORS OF THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. IT'S PROBABLY TRUE, YOU'RE ALL FAGGOTS AND WANT BANE'S DICK. OH LOOK ITS TIME TO REPOST UR STUPID CIA THREAD, GO AHEAD AND CLICK THE BUTTON WITH YOUR GREASY NECKBEARD FINGERS. I BET YOU WEAR FEDORAS AND TRENCHCOATS TOO. STUPID ASS FAGGOTS, THIS FORCED MEME IS NOTHING MORE THAN SHIT, TRYHARD FEDORA NECKBEARDS ATTEMPT AT BEING ORIGINAL. YOUR "OC" IS PATHETIC, JUST SOME SHITTY PAINT EDITS OF THE SAME PIC OVER AND OVER. WHAT A BUNCH OF TALENTLESS FAGGOTS, GO CHEW ON YOUR MOUNTAIN DEW AND YOUR DORITOS. IM DONE ARGUING WITH YOU FAGGOTS, GO CHECK YOUR STUPID DUBS AND RE-WATCH TDKR FOR THE 50TH TIME WHILE YOU MANCHILDREN KEEP REPOSTING THIS UNFUNNY CRAP EVERY SINGLE HOUR

>>524753

>>524742

>You really can't salvage this.

What's there to salvage? I'm right, you're wrong.

>For future reference southfront, globalsecurity, and stratfor are all valid sources.

Where are your proofs?

>>524744

Make me, paczki.

>>524753

H O T H E A D

O

T

H

E

A

D

>>524760

Lurk moar or fuck off to wherever you're from. Southfront, ANNA, and Almasdarnews have been primary sources for loads of Syria news for ages. It is almost always behind an Archive, because only faggots don't archive. I have posted Southfront articles here multiple times in an IS field modification thread with over 200 replies.

>>492460

It's not all of our faults that you aren't from here/can't fucking pay attention. BTW, ANNA is the best of the above mentioned, but there's little of their content in English.

>>524753

you didn't fly so good.

>>524780

>Lurk moar or fuck off to wherever you're from. Southfront, ANNA, and Almasdarnews have been primary sources for loads of Syria news for ages.

>JUST TRUST US GOYIM

>>524753

You're a big sperg.

>>524794

>irl mud test (courtesy of ian

AR platforms are literally the best rifles in the world, but that entire test was garbage.

1. It wasn't mud

2. Mud isn't even a test for rifles*

3. He poured the wet sand only on center of the rifle, where the AR dust flap is

4. He only poured on top, not dropping rifle in it

In what situation is your rifle going to fall on wet sand and only get the dust cover wet from directly the top, so the dust cover seals even more perfectly from the weight of the sand on it? There were dozens of glaring issues with that "test",

* Sand of various sizes, airborne dust, snow, water, dirty water, humidity in air, dryness in air (which harms lubricant), extreme heat, extreme cold and various combinations of these are all stress tests for military equipment. The most important one is humidity followed by cold, almost all rifles fail that because humidity seeps in and cold freezes internal parts. Mud, as in actual soil mixed with water, isn't a test in any lab I know of.

>>524469

I think Russian jets are ugly in a kickass way. That said you'd be a fool to underestimate the latest Su-35 Flankers. They are technically superior to the F-15 (duh, beating it was the main goal), can supercruise and have a very powerful radar which may burn through the stealth of the F-35. Coincidentally the Flanker is missing entirely from your cute graphic OP, coincidence?

>>524997

Why are you biting stale as fuck bait?

>>524997

He also "forgot" to mention the exchange ratio of 90's German F-16 vs German MiG-29s in virtual air combat.

>>524821

>1. It wasn't mud

>2. Mud isn't even a test for rifles*

oy vey the test doesn't real

>3. He poured the wet sand only on center of the rifle, where the AR dust flap is

>4. He only poured on top, not dropping rifle in it

Every single rifle test they do is like that, they only drop pistols in the wheelbarrow.

Get raked, leaf.

>>525040

>caring about retarded "reliability tests" when you'd just grab another gun if one became fouled in a real combat situation

Dumbass

>>524807

Liquid sand is glass you dumbfuck

>>524469

Blatant disregard of context: the post.

Context: excluding WW2, american aircraft only ever had to face underarmed, undertrained and undernumbered foes in third world shitholes. Soviet aircraft was nearly always used in equal or uphill battles.

>>533013

I always wondered this. It's not stealth as >>533016 says because this design philosophy predates stealth. For example F-16, F-14 and F-15 had canard options/experiments yet they were never put into service.

>>533026

Weird indeed, especially if you consider that F-15SMT/D had dramatically improved baseline F-15' performance in STOL and maneuvering with no obvious disadvantages.

>>533095

>How do leading edge root extensions compare to canards in flight performance anyhow?

Far from sure but I think LERX are pretty much pseudo-canards with less prominent advantages and disadvantages; they are also, unlike canards, kinda obligatory in modern designs because they somehow improve the airflow or decrease the drag at the root of the wing due to more swept angle, as a matter of fact the Typhoons' wing was redesigned with a discreet small LERX similar to the Rafale's after it entered service allegedly due to some low speed maneuverability deficiencies.

>>524479

>written off

Every article I saw said it landed, preliminary checks showed it was relatively undamaged, and it was waiting for a Lockmart team to give it a once-over before it returns to service. I can't find any source indicating anything like a write off.

>>524487

I'm going to need some kind of evidence on that. So far, all I can find is that a strike group of F-15s and F-16s bombed a SAM site, an F-35 was damaged after hitting two birds, and some people are saying that somehow the fact that these two events happened within two weeks of each other proves that the F-35 was shot down.

>>533095

If you imagine a super unsafe LERX at full displacement, it severely affects airflow over the wing, causing a drop in altitude and speed, and also potentially interfering with airflow over wing control surfaces. That (and mechanics) are why LERX are often limited in movement and the amount of added control they give the aircraft.

Canards can be theoretically placed in such a way that using them has a lot lesser effect on lift, control or drag over the wings…

tl;dr canards can be more safely used at higher angles

>>533106

In general more control surfaces means more maintenance headaches, a larger empty weight, and higher purchase price. However also the better the controlability, reliability, maneuverability, resilience to damage and survivability - since you can lose a few control surfaces and still carry out the mission or at least come home.

It's why eastern philosophy is More Better! Their perfect aircraft has 2x slats, 2x tails, 2x canards, 2x lerx, 2x wing control surface, 2x thrust vector nozzles, 2x those MiG-29 fod shields, a huge dorsal mechanical brake and a parachute brake (plus JATOs and a third engine if we can find room for it). They have low labor costs so the initial price of the aircraft and maintenance doesn't matter a lot, ergo better to make it as ready as possible in the air.

>>533110

>F-35 was damaged after hitting two birds

>F-35 on a mission to hit SAMs

>gets hit by a bird

>gets hit by a second bird

>both birds have a max altitude of 15000 feet when they're migrating

>they don't go over 5000 feet in regular flight

>Ergo F-35 was flying at 5000 feet to hit a bunch of SAMs

>this is the altitude of 23mm cannon

>someone decided to fly the aircraft in small caliber AAA range which circles every fucking SAM site

I don't know what happened but if you're dumb enough to believe the official story I've got a bridge to sell you, just don't ask where it leads.

By the way pick your poison:

A) Getting hit by S-200 doing while properly it's actual mission of SEAD

B) Failing to do its actual mission because it got taken out by a pair of retired infant deliverymen

I don't know which is worse.

>>533144

>on a mission to hit SAMs

???

It wasn't part of the strike package. The aircraft sent to hit SAMs were F-15s and 16s

>>524625

>canadian

>saying welfare is cheaper than developing weapons

>>533153

Wasn't the whole JSF program practically a welfare campaign?

>>524522

>$220M per plane

>checked by 22

Honestly that doesn't sound that bad if you consider the whole program cost.

For it's one and a half trillion they'd have to sell at least ten thousand aircraft at competitive price to make it profitable.

>>>/pol/10985381

http://archive.is/dGF8r

>THE marketing campaign makes it clear: The F-35 justifies its enormous cost and limited weapons load by being sneaky and enormously well informed.

>But its international customers probably didn’t expect this.

>Norwegian defence officials have caught one of their new $A120 million (less research and development costs) F-35A Lightning II Block 3F stealth jets sending sensitive data back to its US manufacturer — Lockheed Martin.

>Norway is the first non-US user of the F-35 to have a mission-critical software package enabled through the provision of Mission Data Files.

>It’s a critical database and software package that is supposed to finally deliver what the advertising videos have been promising for more than a decade: ‘revolutionary situational awareness’.

>But it appears that ‘situational awareness’ cuts both ways.

>Turns out the US military megacorp is getting detailed telemetry on everything Norwegian pilots are doing delivered to its Fort Worth, Texas, facility.

It's like a fucking smartphone!

>>533144

see >>524652

>and the IDF and Syrians were fighting near the Syrian-Lebanon border, approximately 200+ miles away from the airbase. So somehow if the Syrian story and the assumption in this thread is true, this F-35 got hit by a SAM, suffered damage, but limped back to an airbase 200 miles away without incident?

Why are faggots who hide their flags usually the biggest retards?

>>533148

Then what the fuck was it doing flying around in Syrian airspace in range of pickup truck guns?

Bird watching?!

>>533293

see >>533144

>I don't know what happened

I'm just saying the official bird story is fucking retarded.

Why do low-IQ always hide behind a flag?

>>533352

>flying around in Syrian airspace

Anon, it wasn't in Syrian airspace. It was flying over the Negev Desert, on the other side of the country from Syria. It was flying a training mission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev

You're making shit up and acting like that makes you right.

>>524469

It depends on your budget, how long you want to keep the plane, how long you mothball it, your doctrine, etc etc.

On paper US planes are much better, they last longer and are reasonable to run. Slavshit doesn't last that long (up to 1/4 the lifespan of the engines and 1/3rd for the airframe) but are good for if you need an operation done right now with very little logistical footprint for a short amount of time with low start up costs.

>>524479

I wouldn't trust it that much since jews are retards, arabs are retards and there are no images to go off of.

>>524524

>>524513

>forgetting the cost of pilots

>pilots are an infinite resource

If your pilot can fight another day it's better than the cost of the bird

>>533016

>Still a shitty excuse given that even LERXs are not particularly stealthier than properly made canards

>What is the SR-71

>What are LERX's previous name called Chines

The F-22 also has LERX built into the front of the air intakes

>>533013

More control surfaces = more drag Drag

best way to pull it off is if it's blended into the body like the PAKFA

With tail control surfaces you can "hide" them behind the wings

>>524522

>>533247

>>533270

It isn't exactly 220M per plane. It goes over the whole program, maintenance, upgrades and lifespan costs over the time they use the aircraft.

The trillion dollars as well they tout for the whole program is for the entire life of the F-35 (which is supposed to be 50 years off the top of my head, I could be wrong about it being that long)

>>533356

>It was flying over the Negev Desert,

A story concocted two weeks after the incident occurred.

At least don't try to grandstand on propaganda.

>>533378

>a story concocted

Proof?

You're literally saying that because you don't think the plane was in one location, that proves it was in another. You literally have no evidence whatsoever to support your argument. You're just using the fact that because you think that is what happened, that must be what actually happened.

Your entire argument is based upon you coming up with a contrived idea and then working backwards to "prove" it. Sure, if you assume that the F-35 was flying wild weasel missions over Syria and was damaged, it would be logical to conclude that it was damaged by the SAM. But you have no evidence to support that claim. You can claim that the Israelis are lying all you want, but unless you have any evidence contradicting what they say, there is no reason to believe you. Your argument is literally "I don't believe the official story, therefore what actually happened is this." Sure, the first part (not believing the official story) is logical, but going from "I don't believe it" to "this is actually what happened" with no evidence in between is illogical.

I might as well just claim that I don't believe the official story of some event, make up some random bullshit about what actually happened, and then claim that because you can't believe the official story, therefore what I say happened is what actually happened.

Honestly, the whole conspiracy is fucking ridiculous. Are you honestly going to tell me that it is logical to assume that an F-35 was hit by a 500 pound warhead and was so undamaged that it managed to fly all the way across the country and make a controlled landing? B-52s have been brought down by much smaller warheads, yet the F-35 apparently has magic plane armor that allows it to shrug off a 500-pound warhead and fly a hundred miles before making a controlled landing?

>>533373

>>pilots are an infinite resource

I think you kinda underestimate the availability of pilots compared to other resources needed, especially in an era where we have extremely convincing simulators.

>>533385

>was hit by a 500 pound warhead and was so undamaged

An aerial hit is almost never a direct impact.

>>533439

They take 2 years to train properly, which is why you try hard to not lose alot of them in a very short amount of time.

Japan during WWII had better trained pilots than the US, close to the end of the war they had barely trained retards flying zeros.

>>533285

Maybe its just that its software is running on Win10.

>>533451

could you make planes that are easier to pilot? i mean half of the shit in the cockpit could be probably streamlined and if instead of needing two years, you would need 1-1,5 year not only would it reduce overall costs greatly but also make attrition easier to manage

t. doesnt really understand planes

>>533919

Yes you could make an airplane that's completely AI guided and has only 1 button for a pilot, the "ok to fire" button.

But then the pilots wouldn't have job security.

>>533919

>could you make planes that are easier to pilot?

Not really. The way you make a plane easier to fly is to make it slower and more stable. Fighters need to be fast and unstable. No way around it.

Moving the pilot to the ground and giving him a remote control would just make it harder, since he can't feel what the aircraft is doing and you introduce input lag, plus it adds an extra source of failure in case of communication problems.

>AI capable of dogfighting

lol

>>533919

yeah, they can make them easier to fly. a lot of jets (nonfighter) are about as easy to fly as a 172. most of what they have to learn I assume is the million and one things that aren't flying.

>>533924

so basically a cruise missile. a computer for manuevering against another airplane is pretty retarded. but self-flying planes are a lot easier than self-driving cars in the wild.

>>533928

>>533982

Certain Russian jets already have advanced autopilot and maneuvering suggestions from AI, and America has a fully AI fighter pilot that's better than human.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/06/29/this-ai-can-beat-a-top-fighter-pilot/

Soon the only reason humans will be needed is:

1. Out of AWACS range, or AWACS jammed

2. Nuke takes out electronics (but then planes like F-16 crash)

3. For authorizing a hit when it's morally questionable.

>>533919

>could you make planes that are easier to pilot?

It isn't that they're easier to pilot, it's that you can't make it easier to train for a dogfight, or else they'd be shitty dogfighters.

> i mean half of the shit in the cockpit could be probably streamlined and if instead of needing two years

The most that has been done is a "guide" in the HUD kind of what you see in Ace Combat, (the french use it on the Rafale) but you still can't use that to account for training.

> you would need 1-1,5 year not only would it reduce overall costs greatly but also make attrition easier to manage

It isn't about cost, it's more about how effective your pilots are. The US learned this in Vietnam and the Soviets during WWII.

You still need atleast 2 years to train a decent pilot how to fight, it's like asking to cut green beret training in half and expecting the same quality.

>>534188

you leave Patrice out of this

>>534366

More like, unlike Windows 10 or your average smartphone, they actually care if the interface is actually useful, rather than just looks pretty.

>>533919

Planes are already made piss easy to pilot, with all the computer assistance there are. There is piloting assistance that prevents you fucking up the controls and in general guides the plane where you want it, there is aiming assistance with pretty much every single plane having a cannon deflection trajectory and lock-on target information on your HUD, all systems are automated as much as possible in order to simplify flight. It's just even with all of that, piloting a fighter is still difficult.