[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha / animu / ausneets / bsa / cafechan / leftpol / lewd / sw ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


There's no discharge in the war!

File: 720d01adf26472d⋯.jpg (119.87 KB, 800x926, 400:463, 3_three_thrust-vectoring_a….jpg)

File: 6f5ddcce8d9597e⋯.jpg (162.32 KB, 1280x880, 16:11, f-18HARV cobra hornet.jpg)

File: f975b5c2dd22706⋯.jpg (141.32 KB, 1041x822, 347:274, f-15smtd.jpg)

File: 31ef747015888b7⋯.jpg (49.7 KB, 800x624, 50:39, f-16CCV the most agile vip….jpg)

e906c1 No.544169

F-15SMT/D:

>In 1975, Langley Research Center began to conduct sponsored programs studying two-dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles;[4]:44 government and industry studies of non-axisymmetric two-dimensional (2-D) nozzles in the early 1970s had identified significant payoffs for thrust-vectoring 2-D nozzle concepts.[4]:192 In 1977, Langley started a system integration study of thrust-vectoring, thrust-reversing, and 2-D nozzles on the F-15 with McDonnell Douglas. In 1984, the Flight Dynamics Laboratory, the Air Force Aeronautical Systems Division awarded a contract to McDonnell Douglas for an advanced development STOL/MTD experimental aircraft.The aircraft used in the STOL/MTD program[5] has flown several times since the successful STOL/MTD program completion in 1991 that used thrust vectoring and canard foreplanes to improve low-speed performance. This aircraft tested high-tech methods for operating from a short runway. This F-15 was part of an effort to improve ABO (Air Base Operability), the survival of warplanes and fighting capability at airfields under attack.

>The F-15 STOL/MTD tested ways to land and take off from wet, bomb-damaged runways. The aircraft used a combination of reversible engine thrust, jet nozzles that could be deflected by 20 degrees, and canard foreplanes. Pitch vectoring/reversing nozzles and canard foreplanes were fitted to the F-15 in 1988.[citation needed] NASA acquired the plane in 1993 and replaced the engines with Pratt & Whitney F100-229 engines with Pitch/Yaw vectoring nozzles.[6] The canard foreplanes were derived from the F/A-18's stabilators.

>Prior to 1991, when McDonnell Douglas ended its program after accomplishing their flight objectives, the F-15 STOL/MTD plane achieved some impressive performance results:[4]

>Demonstrated vectored takeoffs with rotation at speeds as low as 42 mph (68 km/h)

>A 25-percent reduction in takeoff roll

>Landing on just 1,650 ft (500 m) of runway compared to 7,500 ft (2,300 m) for the standard F-15

>Thrust reversal in flight to produce rapid deceleration

>Controlled flight at angles of attack up to about 85 degrees

YF-16CCV:

>The initial YF-16 prototype was reconfigured in December 1975 to serve as the USAF Flight Dynamics Laboratory's Control-Configured Vehicle (CCV) testbed. The CCV concept entails "decoupling" the aircraft's flight control surfaces so that they can operate independently. This approach enables unusual maneuvers such as being able to turn the airplane without banking it. The ability to maneuver in one plane without simultaneously moving in another was seen as offering novel tactical performance capabilities for a fighter. The CCV YF-16 design featured twin pivoting ventral fins mounted vertically underneath the air intake, and its triply redundant fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system (FCS) was modified to permit use of flaperons on the wings' trailing edges which would act in combination with an all-moving stabilator. The fuel system was redesigned to enable adjustment of the aircraft's center of gravity by transferring fuel from one tank to another. The CCV aircraft achieved its first flight on 16 March 1976. The flight test program ran until 30 June 1977, and was marred only by a hard landing on 24 June 1976 that delayed testing until repairs were effected.

>The CCV program was judged successful and led to a more ambitious follow-on effort in the form of the "Advanced Fighter Technology Integration" (AFTI) F-16.

F-16VISTA:

>The F-16 VISTA testbed aircraft incorporated a multi-axis thrust vectoring (MATV) engine nozzle that provides for more active control of the aircraft in a post-stall situation. The resulting aircraft is supermaneuverable, retaining pitch and yaw control at angles of attack beyond which the traditional control surfaces cannot change attitude.[citation needed]

>The VISTA program was considered successful, but the thrust vector control (TVC) never made it into production fighter versions.

e906c1 No.544170

>>544169

F-18VISTA:

>The High Alpha (angle of attack) Research Vehicle was an American modified McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet used by NASA in a 3-phase program investigating controlled flight at high angles of attack using thrust vectoring, modifications to the flight controls, and with actuated forebody strakes. The program lasted from April 1987 to September 1996.[1][2]

>NASA reported that in one phase of the project, Armstrong Flight Research Center "research pilots William H. "Bill" Dana and Ed Schneider completed the envelope expansion flights in February 1992. Demonstrated capabilities included stable flight at approximately 70 degrees angle of attack (previous maximum was 55 degrees) and rolling at high rates at 65 degrees angle of attack. Controlled rolling would have been nearly impossible above 35 degrees without vectoring."[3] Performance figures were not listed for other phases.

All of the above were built into prototypes, were tested in real flight and produced some more than impressive results, and all these in slightly modified already mass produced aircraft. Why did not the US military proceed with using these tested technologies to upgrade their production line into Su/MiG-35-tier 4.5++ gen fighters, and consequently create a technological and logistical safety net for then future aircraft's, like the F-22 and F-35 instead, production and instead let their 5th gen fighter programmes be pure clean-sheet, consequently costing trillions, their existing backbone airfleets having a considerable performance deficit not only compared to their logistically limited 5th gen fighter but also foreign and potentially enemy fighters and even the F-35, that would be the future backbone of their own and allied entire military airfleets, to be without performance-improving technologies like thrust-vectoring which had been tested literally hundreds of times at that point.


478827 No.544175

>Why did not the US military proceed with using these tested technologies to upgrade their production line

I'll give you a (((hint)))


a8134a No.544184

>>544169

That F-15 looks like a completely unneeded variant and the kind of design trap the USSR would fall for where every possible scenario had a variant for it.


be9bc9 No.544187

>>544184

>completely unneeded variant

see again:

>Demonstrated vectored takeoffs with rotation at speeds as low as 42 mph (68 km/h)

>A 25-percent reduction in takeoff roll

>Thrust reversal in flight to produce rapid deceleration

>Controlled flight at angles of attack up to about 85 degrees

and special note on:

>Landing on just 1,650 ft (500 m) of runway compared to 7,500 ft (2,300 m) for the standard F-15

>7,500 ft

>that's probably less than its operational TAKE-OFF distance

It required a 5 times(!) shorter runway to land than the standard variant. That's an invaluable logistical advantage for the only dedicated interceptor in US inventory. .


c8f797 No.544189

how come this shit isn't used for a STOL carrier aircraft


be9bc9 No.544192

>>544187

>inb4: MUH KINETIC BLEEDING, MUH WEIGHT/COST/COMPLEXITY INCREASE AND MUH DOGFIGHT/PUGACHEV COBRA/HI AOA/ THRUST VECTORING ARE JUST A MEME

Despite it's main advantages in air combat being during dogfights thrust vectoring is as demonstrated by X-36 and F-15SMTD not only useful at that but since they can potentially be used as control agents that don't produce significant drag, at least compared to aerodynamic surfaces.

Weight increase is more than compensated in maneuvering by thrust vectoring's own merits.

Vast kinetic bleeding becomes an issue only if thrust vectoring is abused, usually by rookie and/or panicking pilots, something that could be easily prevented by software, AoA inhibitors exist for the same exact reason. Also in a 1v1 dogfight:

>Thrust reversal in flight to produce rapid deceleration

>Controlled flight at angles of attack up to about 85 degrees

might look like counter intuitive to the whole dogma of "speed=life" but combined they can easily allow to a defender to overshoot and reverse places with the attacker if things have gone really south.

>structural, technological and maintenance complexity that increases cost

A considerable argument but I seriously doubt it can't compensate with logistical and developmental advantages it offers.

>>544189

With a proper landing gear it could even be the best second strike fighter platform in the same Viggens and Gripens were meant to be operated, especially given that F-15 was and probably still is NORAD's backbone since I doubt that less than 300 maintenance-thirsty Raptors can compensate.


be9bc9 No.544205

File: c4ca56a14ad2f74⋯.gif (351.5 KB, 245x209, 245:209, never go full retard.gif)

>>544200

>purely technology demonstrators

You mean like:

>X-29

>X-31

>X-36

>Berkut

?

Oh wait… these were either clean sheet designs or unrecognizable radically altered airframes of fighters that were never mass produced instead of mere additions to the most mass produced combat aircraft of their time.


6f28cc No.544207

File: ee6cf10ed6b8383⋯.jpg (28.35 KB, 442x509, 442:509, 1402088484863.jpg)

>tfw the YF-23 will never be a thing


be9bc9 No.544211

>>544207

Excluding commonality of parts with the F-15 for cost-shaving reasons, YF-23 suffered from the opposite kikery than that protested in the OP, still the (((motives))) for its cancellation were probably the same.


7da539 No.544228

>>544184

>where every possible scenario had a variant for it

And yet they manage to be a threat for all of NATO despite having a negligible budget compared to it.

Specilization works, period.


6bcddc No.544229

File: dd7266746072db0⋯.jpg (29.92 KB, 550x377, 550:377, 1234.jpg)

File: 01a68df22fbb99b⋯.jpg (161.98 KB, 1024x686, 512:343, F-16_Block_70v2.jpg)

File: 82f504c2457fa33⋯.jpg (48.84 KB, 710x518, 355:259, fb22_header.jpg)

File: 58047e0b7ded23f⋯.jpg (85.56 KB, 550x433, 550:433, loadout_f-16_scamp.jpg)

do these count?

We could have had a two seater tactical bomber variant of the f22, and a tomcat version as well for navy use.

Too bad the marines had to be special snow flakes.


d560fb No.544236

File: d702ca077b4128b⋯.png (77.6 KB, 805x208, 805:208, 3ZT8MIh.png)

>>544228

>And yet they manage to be a threat for all of NATO despite having a negligible budget compared to it.

>USSR aircraft

>threat

/r/ing for the graph of thousands of USSR aircraft K/D ratios


7da539 No.544245

>>544236

>measuring effectiveness by k/d ratio

You are retarded.


be9bc9 No.544248

>>544229

>do these count?

Though the ASF-14 4.5+++ gen Tomcat is my personal favourite it still was something on paper, therefore something military budget's (((concerntrolls))) could realistically shill against.

>>544236

>/r/ing for the graph of thousands of USSR aircraft K/D ratios

Unfair comparison due to one-sided conflicts between fully upgraded western aircraft with AMRAAMs and full AWACS support against badly maintained cold war era inventory with no spare parts, usually piloted by sandniggers also the infographic is derived from purely western and israeli claims.

Plus I seriously doubt a western aircraft would suffer a lower k/d ratio if it was made better.


774562 No.544286

File: 8e353a5119887af⋯.jpg (130.86 KB, 1024x791, 1024:791, muh miggers.jpg)

>>544236

I gotcha fam.

>>544245

>fly plane

>get fucking killed in action an overwhelming majority of the time against the other guys

<I-It's not that the aircraft is bad guys!…


be9bc9 No.544294


be9bc9 No.544295

>>544283

>those were technology demonstrators

>thank you for proving me right

Which part of X- vs F- or "unrecognizable radically altered airframes" vs "mere additions to the most mass produced combat aircraft of their time" don't you understand, you mongoloid?

Also "technology demonstrator" does not in any way imply "purely for show off and will will never ever ever use these in a combat plane". The Su-35S is the product of implementing technologies from the Su-37 demonstrator and Sukhoi themselves have even claimed that they intend to develop the Berkut into a production fighter.


9a72a1 No.544300

>>544294

I'm not sure why you posted two links since they're both sourcing the exact same pilot. Anyway, to quote the pilot himself

>At FL200 (20,000 ft) that gives us a radius of 150-nm, and at FL100 (10,000 ft) we have a radius of only 100-nm.

>The radar has a poor display, giving poor situational awareness

>We don’t have the range to conduct HVAA attack missions

>Our limited station time and lack of air-to-air refuelling capability effectively rules us out of meaningful air defence missions. Nor are we suited to the sweep escort role.

>We have a very limited range, especially at high speed and low altitudes, and are limited to 540-kt with external fuel.

>The only possible missions for NATO’s MiG-29s are as adversary threat aircraft for air combat training, for point defence, and as wing (not lead!) in Mixed Fighter Force Operations.

When he gets into the positives, he does confirm the 29 is extremely powerful at close-in combat. So you've got an aircraft that's very good at the aviation equivalent to knife-fighting, but is half-blind and asthmatic. Sure, some of these can be alleviated through upgrades, but the inflexibility seems like a major downside.


be9bc9 No.544311

>>544300

It was a 1st gen MiG-29A, it could outmaneuver and pull double the AoA of full blown 4th gen western fighters WITHOUT relaxed stability and FBW and it's no big secret that USSR had serious technological disadvantages in electronics compared to the West at that point (still the MiG had a better helmet-mounted-display with missile guiding capabilities and the R-71 was by far the best short range missile for nearly two decades after, the combination gave a k/d ratio vs F-16 of 9-1 in dogfights even though the F-16 has marginally better sustained turn rate which is generally considered more importantand mind that for the first two years since MiG-29 came into production the F-16 could not even use Sparrows).

>, but the inflexibility seems like a major downside

Avionics are among the easiest part to upgrade in an aircraft, current export versions of MiG-29 are marketed as being able to have their software modified to fire western origin weapons.

The early Su-27s were superior to western equivalents of their era in almost every metric aspect and only suffered from less sophisticated cockpit configuration and avionics and their radar was only inferior to the Tomcat's.


a8134a No.544314

>>544228

Russia as a whole isn't a threat beyond muh nukes, which will never get used and are currently decaying into irrelevance, since it doesn't have enough money to do shit beyond come out with a tech demo every few years and sell it to India. China makes Russia look like an anemic child with broken limbs by comparison, because it actually mass produces shit and has the 3rd largest GDP on Earth. inb4 muh radios and muh underwear


9a72a1 No.544324

>>544311

I'm in no way disputing that in a close-range dogfight the 29 will likely win nine times out of ten. And yes, ripping the avionics out and shoving better ones in is pretty simple. The problem I see is that while the 29 has fantastic capabilities in the close range engagement, I can't see it reliably getting close enough to put that to use. It's got piss-poor range since it runs two engines for basically the same fuel load and from what I could see, worse speed than a F16. That being said, I'm pretty much a no-nothing when it comes to modern air combat.


7da539 No.544335

>>544286

You. Are. A. Fucking. Moron.

Before you can make any such claim aboit K/D, you have to factor in economics, available resources, population dynamics, then factor in the enemys will to win a particular war. These things arent easy to account for, you have a childs grasp of war.

>>544314

Russian land based nuclear missiles are 45 ahead of our technology at the moment, their torpedoes are 40 years ahead, their tanks are about 15 years ahead of ours, we pretty much had to copypaste their scramjet and VTOL technology, their submarines have twin hulls with titanium while ours use single hull steel, their anti ship missiles have larger warheads, more speed, greater range… they are a threat bro. Only a fucking moron would say Russia isnt a threat given the fact that 30k taliban have fucked up 100k US soldiers.

>muh chyna

China cant even make a jet engine, in fact all of their formidable weapons are Russian cpies.

Youre saying Russia isnt a threat, but the country that copies their nerfed export weapons IS?


478827 No.544344

>>544286

Reminder that the US lost well over 2000 planes during Vietnam and Gooks were able to score a higher K:D than Burgers.


be9bc9 No.544387

>>544324

>It's got piss-poor range since it runs two engines for basically the same fuel load and from what I could see, worse speed than a F16.

Yeah that was always the main problem with the MiG-29 since it was designed as a point defense fighter since the air-policing role was on the MiG-25 and later MiG-31 and Su-27. That doesn't make it any way inferior in the usual interception ranges of most western fighters (aka AMRAAM-armed ones) if it's armed with R-77s or even Alamos.

Also all later than the original -C variants have appealed to the range problem with dorsal conformal tanks and in the case of the redesigned variants MiG-29M, MiG-29K and MiG-35 the issues is pretty much solved.


be9bc9 No.544388

>>544345

Bold words from the guy with the three single-sentenced shitposts.


3c810e No.544390

File: b70f03231408599⋯.jpg (323.17 KB, 1800x1430, 180:143, 1485375723184.jpg)

File: 35eb499a32c6ea7⋯.jpg (5.26 MB, 5184x3456, 3:2, 1485375897185.jpg)

File: 4e728f914a816b4⋯.jpg (269.06 KB, 1800x1428, 150:119, 1485380075186.jpg)

File: 692264b5ad03bfc⋯.jpg (112.37 KB, 640x414, 320:207, 1504523749141.jpg)

>>544236

>one has a vodka bottle filled with water

Are you fucking kidding me?

>>544169

What about the F20 Tigershark?

From what I've read about it, it was a very light fighter prototype, pushed by an asskicking single GE F404 and able to carry most of the US ordinance inventory. Even if it wasn't enough for the USAF to bite, it would have been a perfect aircraft for export. Some countries showed interest, but ultimately the project was canceled.

>One of the F-20's flight characteristics was the ability to fly at only 124 km/h (77 mph) at 35° AoA (angle of attack), while the F-16 was limited to 30°; acceleration from Mach 0.9 to 1.2 in 29 seconds (at 9,150 m); climb to 12,200 m (or 40,000 ft) in 2.3 minutes (including 55 sec for the start and 22 for the INS set-up).

This is all you need to know about why it never reached production.

>The F-20 was significantly more expensive than the previous generation F-5E. Among its Teen Series contemporaries, the F-20 was offered as a low-cost option; cost-wise it was estimated in 1983 that the unit fly-away cost of the F-20 (based on a 150-unit buy) was $10.7 million, compared to the F-16/79 at $11 million and the F-16A at $12.4 million. Unit life-cycle costs for the F-20 estimated as high as 40-50% lower than for the F-16. Another estimate of the F-20 found it less expensive than other designs like the $30 million F-15 Eagle,[33] or $15 million F-16 Fighting Falcon.[34] The F-20 was projected to consume 53% less fuel, to require 52% less maintenance manpower, to have 63% lower operating and maintenance costs and to be four times more reliable than average front-line designs of the era.[29] The F-20 also offer the ability to fire the beyond-visual-range AIM-7 Sparrow missile, a capability that the F-16 lacked at that time, and did not gain until the F-16A/B Block 15 ADF version in February 1989.[35]


6f28cc No.544392

>>544344

By the end of the war, Soviet-made SAMs made Hanoi the most well defended airspace in the world. Leave it to the Air Force to think that strategic bombing would cause an enemy to surrender without ever occupying an inch of their territory. Not to mention the on-again off-again bombing used for political gain and pressure on peace negotiations that practically told the Vietnamese when the aircraft were coming in the first place.


be9bc9 No.544407

>>544390

It was a good plane but IMO being trashed in favor of the F-16 was a good or at least warranted decision, since its airframe was largely based on a 2nd gen fighter and did not leave much room for improvement, similarly of how the Mirage III-based Mirage 2000 resulted in an evolutionary dead end just two decades after it entered service.

If the US had pursuit development of the X-29, which was essentially a Tigershark with redesigned wings (both based on the F-5 airframe and using the same exact engine), into a combat aircraft and assuming commonality of parts with the F-20 then maybe it could have served as a stepping stone for the development of a genuine 4.5 gen fighter.


9baf32 No.544572

File: e1e455a7db1cba5⋯.jpg (109.72 KB, 1600x900, 16:9, YF23.jpg)

File: e1811fdfb441d05⋯.jpg (61.56 KB, 710x399, 710:399, YF23vsYF22.JPG)

File: 7e91395714d4024⋯.jpg (275.84 KB, 1523x470, 1523:470, YF-23 drawing side interna….jpg)

File: 8ba9a884bfab141⋯.jpg (81.8 KB, 800x800, 1:1, yf23Foxtrot2.jpg)

>>544207

I was waiting for someone to mention this beauty. Faster AND stealthier than the 22.


68e5df No.544657

File: 1571f642a2d9ae6⋯.png (Spoiler Image, 323.24 KB, 650x492, 325:246, CG.png)

>>544572

Bigger, faster and stealthier too.

It's the first member of the ATF crew! Huh!


774562 No.544665

File: d3e8ef4be178ad0⋯.jpg (599.61 KB, 2000x1336, 250:167, 55940.jpg)

File: 1db0cc0230fe9c7⋯.jpg (110.88 KB, 1024x682, 512:341, 1024px-Burning_Libyan_Corv….jpg)

File: 0dcc80b006b2bb8⋯.jpg (75.1 KB, 550x400, 11:8, kursk-wreck.jpg)

File: 1d8251af2ac8a6b⋯.jpg (350.44 KB, 800x531, 800:531, Soviet armor makes me prou….jpg)

>>544335

Oh yeah, I'm SURE that the soviets are light years ahead of us and aren't just a huge paper tiger! Just look at all of these weapon systems that totally work because state owned sputnik news said so! The bomber gap, missile gap, Mig25, AK, Hind, Black shark, 30mm rotary canon, super duper death ray missiles that know where the enemy fleet is at all times, every single tank, APC, and IFV they ever fielded, hydrogen peroxide fueled torpedoes, and titanium double hulled submarines! With tech like that, they would never lose an asymmetric war due to poor combat effectiveness in say, Afghanistan and Chechnya! And I'm sure China is just as powerful as Iraq with all of that top of the line soviet equipment given to them!


68e5df No.544668

File: 1b228f98ce161e3⋯.jpg (587.65 KB, 2151x1606, 2151:1606, real american hero.jpg)

>>544665

They did not lose in Czechnya though unless you're talking from a fucking leaf's perspective and regarding Afghanistan I am sure they would not expect the US to be reckless enough to provide last generation MANPADs to full blown jihadi terrorists.

The real reason Russian military is a "threat" to you/us/US/NATO/West/ZOG in the near future is not their dated technologies but because their armed forces and military industry are not glorified welfare services with diversity quotas.


378d0d No.544669

>>544665

This is a pretty bad post, fella. The one you're replying to is bad too but that's not an excuse.


7da539 No.544689

>>544665

>lose an asymmetric war due to poor combat effectiveness in say, Afghanistan and Chechnya!

Soviets were heavily outnumbered in Afghanistan, and with west and China supplying them, the more numerous Mujaheddin were more comparably equipped. In addition CIA formed agitator groups like The Committee of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia to put pressure on their government to leave. And even then they left because their nation was literally collapsing, we dont have that excuse, we left because a muzzie president surrendered. Oh and in Afghanistan? We outnumbered the taliban, and had better tech.

Chechnya was hard to win because USSR had collapsed, and only retards stayed in officer corps. But Rusdia did win the Chechen war, Chechnya is still a part of Russia, dont see why you brought that up.

The relative ease with which they annexed Crimea, and the effectiveness of their military in suppressing ISIS speaks volumes as well.


272700 No.544702

>>544668

Not same anon, but you do realize that the Kremlin is almost as Zogged as Washington DC, right?


272700 No.544703

>>544689

Our muzzie president was the one who moved the troops to Afghanistan in the first place, retard. I don't see why you don't see these sorts of things as anything more than politics anyway. It's not like our military was actually protecting us from anyone over there.


68e5df No.544705

>>544702

>almost as

It sure is zogged but nowhere near to "almost as". Kikes have a special hateboner for Russians due to the Czar and I am willing to bet many high up Russians already know that.


272700 No.544706

>>544704

Sorry, I meant that our muzzie president moved troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.


272700 No.544707

>>544705

The Czar has been dead for a long time now. That's like saying Berlin isn't as zogged because the kikes have a special hateboner for Hitler.


68e5df No.544712

>>544707

That's because Germany is utterly cucked since WW2. We don't see the (((American media))) cry over how ebul gnatzee Merkel fucked with the election, do we?


774562 No.544722

>>544668

Losing an entire motor rifle division along with your latest and greatest T80 tanks to Slavic rag heads is not what I would call "winning" also the "modern" Russian army is nothing but a camp for fetal alcohol syndrome children with no other skills in life but how to smash a bottle of vodka up one another's anus go to sing spongebob squarepants for a paycheck.

>>544689

Yeah, and you don't think Russia and China weren't giving the Vietnamese their best equipment and infiltrating American public circles too? Soviet support and equipment made very little impact on the outcome of strategic ground battles. The Tet offensive was a complete and total military disaster for the NVA, with them losing upwards of 90% of their fighting strength, but it ended up winning them the war because of public opinion. On the other hand, after the stinger hit Afghanistan, the Soviets were caught completely flat footed and started to lose more battles than they were winning. Eventually grounding their helos entirely and pulling out because they could not take land anymore.

>>544669

Yeah, well someone had to say it. I'm getting sick and tired of /k/ becoming the place for europoors with no standing army to speak of go to stroke the former Warsaw pact's dick.


7da539 No.544823

>>544704

He is retarded, these people are trained to have a two year geopolitical memory at best.

>>544722

>Yeah, and you don't think Russia and China weren't giving the Vietnamese their best equipment and infiltrating American public circles too? Soviet support and equipment made very little impact on the outcome of strategic ground battles.

Soviet equipment had no effect, but its important that they gave it to vietcong? The fuck? This is a mutually contradictory statement.

Also why are you bringing up Vietnam? We lost afghanistan too… compare apples to apples.

>Eventually grounding their helos entirely and pulling out because they could not take land anymore.

And this is a lie, the Soviet troops in Afghanistan were recalled because USSR was breaking apart, and the Supreme Soviet thought they were needed to fight a civil war.

Knocking down transport choppers full of troops had an effect on their decision to leave, but the final decision was one of necessity.


d9bcee No.545076

Hooktube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.

Would you an A-10N?


5c6c0b No.545716

File: a38fd8bd80ee6a6⋯.jpg (147.68 KB, 1023x682, 3:2, Dassault-Mirage-IIIS.jpg)

>>544169

>F-15 S/MTD

How come none of the foreign F-15 users have experimented with their own aftermarket canards?


fca8e1 No.545846

>>545716

I suppose small static canards would be highly redundant in the F-15 design.


478827 No.545853

>>544169

How much do they cost to operate? :^)

>>544572

It had longer range and could carry a larger internal payload as well

Until suddenly it didn't :^)


fca8e1 No.545880

>>545853

>How much do they cost to operate? :^)

I suppose as much as an Su-30MK+ with the exact same technologies. :^)))


f3f1f3 No.545912

File: 85e866948ea1898⋯.jpg (270.03 KB, 900x1166, 450:583, crusaderIII.jpg)

File: 645b951ca33d8f3⋯.jpg (48.67 KB, 894x400, 447:200, ya7f.jpg)

File: 7461ea8a0b6a8a7⋯.jpg (57.27 KB, 675x707, 675:707, satisfying.jpg)

>American safe-investment

Whaddya mean by that?

Anyhow,

>superfighters that were never be.

<Vought XF8U-3 "Crusader III"

<Vought YA-7F "Strikefighter"


fca8e1 No.545913

File: 5f4bcd932c57c0c⋯.jpg (534.25 KB, 946x742, 473:371, huehuehue.jpg)

File: 52ee1504e24f4be⋯.jpg (1.25 MB, 3000x2402, 1500:1201, 363068main_EC73-3468_full.jpg)

File: 4cea30a1a68f04c⋯.jpg (30.27 KB, 736x490, 368:245, fly low hit hard.jpg)

File: 3c403e5c5eb2fa8⋯.jpg (1.15 MB, 1920x1280, 3:2, 1920_ADSC_2409.jpg)

File: 294a43c78b004b7⋯.jpg (546.51 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, HAF-Special-head-on.jpg)

>>545912

><Vought YA-7F "Strikefighter"

I cry evry tiem ;_;


f3f1f3 No.545917

File: c4deeb6e4c59d0a⋯.png (264.34 KB, 640x480, 4:3, dissapointed.png)

File: 67736f7d17c9ae3⋯.jpg (66.88 KB, 714x777, 34:37, gone.jpg)

File: 516a15f07fb96b3⋯.jpg (205.09 KB, 900x900, 1:1, depressedsoldier.jpg)

>>545913

>I cry evry tiem ;_;

At the very least, your country operated A7 Corasir IIs.

Our F8s got trashed because our military stopped being a military after Marcos. Fucktards did not even thought of placing the air assets that were in clark airbase as well as other airbases that are near Mt. Pinatubo into other airbases that are far away from the ashfall when Mt. Pinatubo erupted. I dunno if there ever was a call to scramble all air assets near Mt. Pinatubo.

>MFW I just wanted to fly the "Ensign Eliminator".

>All of dat High wing, Variable incindence (wing), Carrier/catapult-ready, Supersonic goodness.

>You are (technically) akin to riding/taming/controlling/mastering a hornier-than-thou hellcat on speed.

>Can't because Philippine Air LelFarce can't even into safe stowage of aircraft.

>Our F5 Freedom Fighters also got fucked by the ashfall of Mt. Pinatubo as well.

Yes they are old, but they are better than nothing. And I daresay that they (F8s, F5s) are better than what we have (Aermacchi S-211s, FA-50 Golden Eagles) right now. The fuckfaces should have just bought Yak 130s from vodkaland if they want a LIFT, light CAS, and trainer in one package.

Did the worst korean draw/comicfag who do anthropomorphized aircraft grills did the early jet-powered aircraft? And to an extent the prop ones as well?


fca8e1 No.545926

File: 556001e44b91507⋯.jpg (262.63 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, happy happy joy joy.jpg)

File: e9a0bff5625d524⋯.png (771.11 KB, 610x813, 610:813, fun times.png)

>>545917

>At the very least, your country operated A7 Corasir IIs.

My dirty secret is that I wished for the X-32 to win so we would have a stealth fugly instead of the poor man's raptor.


478827 No.545929

>>545926

Back in the 90's everyone thought the X-32 was going to win over the X-35. It was a bit of surprise when the X-35 won.


7da539 No.545933

>>545912

Crusader is one of my fav planes for concept, but it had suuuuuch bad engineers working on it….

>>545929

When the scale model of x35 was shown it didnt even have internal bays, it was supposed to just be a dirt cheap reduced RCS 4.5++ gen built frkm the ground up (not upgraded).

Might have actually worked if it was just that, and cost 50 mil…


250c6d No.546179

>>544572

But muh thrust vectoring and maneuverability


000000 No.547539

>>544665

Even if one disregards the fact that US of A created the ISIS this is the state of your defense establishment:

https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ray-Odierno-destroying-ISIS-war/2015/07/17/id/657735/

>"The administration has said 'three to five' years," he said, DefenseNews reports. "I think in order to defeat ISIL, it's going to take longer than that.

>"In my mind, ISIS is a 10-to-20-year problem, it's not a two-year's problem," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, told reporters, DefenseNews reports. "Now, I don't know what level it will be a problem, but it's a long-term problem."

>"To defeat them, is not just a military issue," he told reporters. "It is an economic issue. It is a diplomatic issue. It is an issue of moderate versus extremists and it is about also, potentially, having the capability to root them out of the places they now hold in Iraq and Syria."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/621189/THREE-DECADES-OF-TERROR-War-with-ISIS-will-last-THIRTY-YEARS-claims-former-CIA-spy-boss

>The war against the ISIS will continue for THIRTY YEARS, according to a former director of the CIA.

>General Hayden is not the only high-ranking figure to publicly predict a long and brutal fight against ISIS. Last year the former Pentagon chief Leon Panetta also predicted a 30-year battle against the jihadi terrorists, adding that the conflict could spread from Syria and Iraq into Libya, Nigeria, Somalia and Yemen.

Enter Russia, the rest is history:

https://theuglytruth.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/russia-isis-usa.jpg

https://en.reseauinternational.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/04/russia-in-syria-655bc.gif


000000 No.547546

>>544665

>>544722

Also read this:

https://archive.fo/WJVqP

"10 myths about Afghanistan"

Have you read the US Army's "Principles of War"

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

Well here is the first one:

>Objective – Direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive and attainable objective. The ultimate military purpose of war is the destruction of the enemy's ability to fight and will to fight.

I hope that will give you a better perspective of military history.


b56bc3 No.547549

File: 0a2552f3ace2df3⋯.jpg (814.66 KB, 2000x1500, 4:3, yf-23_23_of_51.jpg)

>>544572

What I find amazing is that you guys says the Pak Fa isn't stealthy because you can partially see the engines (behind a radar blocker), but the YF-23 was super stealthy…


767a4a No.547582

>>547549

i thought that was a picture of a urinal


f83317 No.547793

File: 1f4aba52c01908c⋯.gif (175.65 KB, 414x566, 207:283, Outof_f8.gif)

>>545933 (Dubs Checked)

>Crusader is one of my fav planes for concept, but it had suuuuuch bad engineers working on it….

>bad engineers

If it was made by bad engineers…why in the heck was it still able to fly? Better yet, used by nations other than the US?

Sure, there are a lot of ensigns that got killed. But it can be argued that the high elimination rate of ensigns is because of the combination of a lot of factors such as:

>having no requests from the USN to build a trainer version of the F8. Hence, all of the naval aviators that got assigned to these F8s basically are starting from zero. The two-saders came in too little, too late.

>IIRC, at that time there was a rat race between aircraft manufacturers for getting the first dibs of military contracts. (lot's of rushings and scrappings of projects; no doubt the F8 has suffered because of this)

>they were at a state of war (the 'nam)

>the jet tech is still early/in development

>and the USN and USAF want planes pronto because of Vietnam and the Cold War.

Any flaws that were attributed to the design were sorted out eventually The Aircraft Carriers at that time also contributed to the demise of the pilots as well since most of the carriers used at the early stages of vietnam were still using boilers and has smokestacks., and the plane still continued to deliver. IMHO the reason why the F8 got shafted is because of the USN's insistence on redundancy (two engines), heavy missile use/focus, as well as their development of the BVR concept of air combat. Hence the reason why the Phantom IIs were picked over the Crusader and the Crusader III.

If you ask me, the F8 has everything that you need.

>High Wing (for gliding options)

>Variable Incidence (shortens take-off rolls)

>Cannons (which the F4 Phantom II does not have from the get go.)

>has hardpoints for rockets, missiles, and bombs (Can become a bombtruck if need be)

All in all, it is a practical aircraft. That many people unjustly shit on.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha / animu / ausneets / bsa / cafechan / leftpol / lewd / sw ]