0a2cca No.579789
OUR GLORIOUS NATION OF EMMERIA IS UNDER ATTACK BY THE TREACHEROUS ESTOVAKIAN MILITARY.
THEIR BOMBERS AND GROUND FORCES ARE RAZING OUR CITY AS WE SPEAK
Comment below with your
>airframe
>role
>callsign
0a2cca No.579790
>>579789
Example:
>F-14D
>Interceptor (Chainsaw config)
>Hitman Actual
3d8a39 No.579794
>F-20 Tiger-shark.
All the ease of use and maneuverability of the F-5E Tiger II, but with the ability to use AIM-120 AMRAAM for BVR engagements.
>Light Fighter/CAS
Smaller size means faster to load out for either dog fighting or ground attack missions.
>Callsign: Abunai
It's Moonspeak for Dangerous.
38e4c9 No.579795
>Canberra B.Mk 2
>Air to ground/strike bomber
>"Green leader"
a6a194 No.579797
>awful thread
>kill yourself
>lol fill in the blanks to fit in no need to post anything of value xD
0a2cca No.579798
>>579797
congrats fagola, my expectations were low and you still undershot them.
HEY GUYS LOOK, THIS FAGGOT HATES FUN.
>>579795
I dig the callsign, m8.
1313be No.579800
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>Su-25
>Air to ground/Air to Air/Brrrrrt
>хардбасс
331463 No.579801
>>579789
Are Yellow 13 and Yellow 4 married?
0a2cca No.579802
>>579801
lmao no they dead
>moBiUs RoOlZ
331463 No.579805
>>579802
watch them get brought back to life in AC7
0a2cca No.579806
>>579805
It would be untrue to say I would be upset about that.
d60e9d No.579810
Can sneaky helo pilots play too?
0a2cca No.579812
>>579810
>OUR RUNWAY'S BEEN BOMBED TO HELL, IT'S TOTALLY USELESS NOW
Go get em' whirlyboi
38e4c9 No.579813
>>579810
>>579812
Oh great who invited the rotary wing nerds.
a6a194 No.579814
>>579798
>this is the first time i've posted here and wow you guys don't even play zero effort forum games thats so weird xd
d60e9d No.579816
>>579813
>fixed-wingfags still upset over J-CATCH
0a2cca No.579818
>>579813
I see you've finally found something to fight for, buddy. Comanche-chan wishes to convert you. Post a worthy fixed-wing loadout to dispute. Both are of value here.
>RAH-66
>Recon/Tank killer
>Rascal 1-1
>>579816
Settle, post your loadout to liberate our city.
>>579814
I have multiple threads on this board approaching 200 replies, several of which are still on the front page.
Remain bitter, fren. I'm enjoying myself and many here are as well. Go to a thread you can contribute to if this sickens you so much.
38e4c9 No.579820
>>579816
>he thinks he can beat the jet mafia
VTOL is the future goyim.
>He brought up J-catch
I'm telling lockheeb.
COIN > Heloshit
e20d9e No.579822
5c8c02 No.579824
>>579789
I sexually identify as an A-10 with a MOAB. IN YOUR FACE AIGAION!
756125 No.579825
>F89d
That chrome and nuclear air to air capability
>Interceptor
6 mile firing range with a genie nuclear missle
>Atomic Ruphylin
7655bf No.579827
>>579789
>A37B
>CAS/artillery read Stonehenge observation.
7.63 M143 minigun, 20mm M197 gunpods, FFAR rocket pods, mk82 iron bombs or napalm depending on the target and two AIM9 side winders just in case
>Lot Lizard
7655bf No.579828
>>579827
>7.63 minigun
Fuck I'm going to bed.
d2b5e0 No.579829
>>579789
>Antonov A40
>Air to Air Aerial Gun Platform
>Airgun
bf60da No.579830
>ADA-101 ADLER
>Multirole Attacker but toting a tactical nuclear cruise missile in centerline internal bay
>Zeitgeist
I'll take a FALKEN instead if the TLS is as powerful as it was in 5.
I'll take a Fenrir over either if I can have the active camo and MPBM.
4931d4 No.579832
>MI24VD (with the experimental rear facing gun)
>Aerial Assault Transport/attack helicopter
>Red Moon One Five
>>579829
Airgun, this is Red Moon One Five, feeling obsolete yet?, over.
af0881 No.579846
>F-106A Delta Dart
>Interceptor
>Sparkles
0a2cca No.579847
38e4c9 No.579849
>City is under attack from super advanced air forces.
>All we can send up is an f-14, an f-5, and a bunch of 1950s relics.
GG no re estovakia
Cant wait to see hows our bob semple brigade and militia men armed with rusty surplus and sex toys handles their t-72s
0a2cca No.579850
>>579849
YEW FAKN WOT M8
>X-02
>Mutil-role
>Scissor Me Timbers
0a2cca No.579851
0d6073 No.579855
>S-500 battalion with all the associated supporting AA elements
>getting rid of the enemy air force
>FUCK♂YOU!
af0881 No.579857
>>579849
Okay, fine.
>F-22A Raptor
>Air dominance
>Iguana One-One
af0881 No.579860
>>579857
And for the assholes on the ground:
>F-16C
>Loaded up with AGM-65s
>Salamander Two
f1f22a No.579861
>>579795
>Canberra was retired from RAF service in 2006, aged 57
>used during the Iraq War
>still technically in service for NASA trial use
How the fuck did that plane last so long?
8718b8 No.579866
>>579794
Nigga stole my plane! Fun fact a composite airframe F-20 with the newer F-18 engine would be able to supercruise. And with the Grippens radar, would be able to see sideways.
I also like X-29 from AC2.
>callsign: leafy bird
1ec636 No.579868
>>Airframe
MiG-17
>>Role
Interceptor
>>Callsign
Freudian Nightmare.
0eeaa1 No.579874
>>579850
For some reason variable geometry forward swept wings looks extremely awkward.
af0881 No.579878
>>579863
It must suck not being able to have fun.
3d8a39 No.579882
>>579863
Don't come to a board about weapons and military tech and bitch when people start talking about hypothetical wars and their favorite aircraft.
4931d4 No.579883
>>579861
AFAIK there's nothing particularly WRONG with the design, if they're kept in good repair (or built today) there's no reason they couldn't fill lower intensity roles in modern airforces. They're probably a hell of a lot cheaper too.
3d8a39 No.579886
>>579884
Know how I can tell you haven't been here for very long? 4 years ago we would have threads devoted to "If /k/ did _blank_" scenarios, nugget fest get-togethers, and innawoods stories. We even had a podcast. For you to imply that /k/ is all serious business and that somehow a fantasy thread about jets is the demise of the board, you are either trying very hard to fit in, or you don't belong here.
8718b8 No.579889
>>579883
Canberra, slightly updated, would be a superior strike platform to Tornado.
cdd6a6 No.579891
BY ORDER OF HER MAJESTÉ
I identify as a Boeing AH-64D Apache four-blade, twin-turboshaft attack helicopter in the service of Her Majesty's British Armed Forces, AAC. If you refer to me as AgustaWestland, I will annihilate your battalions with impunity, shitlord – I am a Boeing trapped inside a British-designed and leased airframe.
My pronouns are: thou, thee, thy, thine, thyself.
My armaments are: M230E1 chain gun, AGM-114N Hellfire thermobaric rockets, & Hydra 70s fitted with M156 white phosphorus munitions.
Please find enclosed my particulars itemised in the format as requested per OP.
>AH-64D
>Ground attack helicopter platform
>Comte Clancy de Grandmesnil Montgommery du Bessin-Seigneurs KG KT OM GCVO GBE AK ONZ QSO GCL CC CMM CD PC
IN FIDE JUSTITIA ET FORTITUDINE
3d8a39 No.579893
>>579866
I actually really wish the F-5 series of aircraft had more attention than being just an export aircraft. The fact that it's so small and can go supersonic makes me think that it would be a great COIN option. It's like the AR-18 of aircraft. Easy to mass produce and works for it's intended purpose, but everyone wants it's sexier sibling (pic related).
8718b8 No.579895
>>579893
Competitor to F-16 was YF-17, and it was actually better. Imagine a F-18 with 10,000lb less weight.
4931d4 No.579896
>>579889
It's bigger and has less than half the speed, and can't carry as much weight. What sort of upgrades were you picturing there?
>>579891
>Not the AgustaWestland Wildcat
What's the matter? Are the LMM too flexible for you?
8718b8 No.579904
>>579896
It's not bigger, wtf? It's 1/3 less size, 10,000lb or thereabouts, and has far weaker and more inefficient engines. Most of the fuselage is also made of thicker and heavier materials.
Could shave 30% of the weight off by using composites, reducing crew to 1, and other minor changes. Could double its thrust by using more modern engines. The weight savings and thrust increase alone should compensate for any payload differences. Nose cone is decent sized enough for bomber radar.
Could be a far better strike platform.
0a2cca No.579907
>>579886
Nailed it, dude.
How can this board attract people if it's all Debbie Downers, /pol/ refugees and other people who hate fun? Revival now!
4931d4 No.579909
>>579904
The Canberra has a longer nose to tail length (19.96m to 16.72m), wingspan (19.51m to 13.91m at full extension), 90km less range, and while the empty weight breaks the Canberras way the fully loaded weight is almost identical to the Tornado. The less powerful engines give it a much lower top speed too (933km/h to 2400km/h). I'll grant that I'm using the stats for a later model Tornado and comparing it to a Canberra built more than a decade beforehand - but the numbers don't lie. As aesthetic and lovable as the Canberra might be she's going to need one hell of an upgrade to compete.
db1a92 No.579911
>>579910
TORpedo is right for once.
>solely about discussing aircraft without the retarded LARPfags
In that vein, post military aerospace.
3d8a39 No.579913
>>579910
Alright, have it your way. Let's just talk about aircraft.
8718b8 No.579918
>>579909
>while the empty weight breaks the Canberras way the fully loaded weight is almost identical to the Tornado.
This has to do with it carrying more fuel because its engines are less efficient, fixing that fixes the weight problem. Todnado carries 5842 liters internally. It can carry four 2250 liter fuel tanks, and two 551 liter fin fuel tanks, for a total of 15944L during its 3890km ferry range, or about 4L/km. For Canberra its 4380km with just the tiny wingtip teardrop tanks, on its shitty ass engines. I'll remind there are variants like RB-57F which have ferry ranges in excess of 12,000km, since their job is intercontinental spying.
One hell of an upgrade isn't impossible, it's been done before. The RB106 engines that replaced the Avon are twice as good, but there's no reason to stop there. A composite airframe and better engines solves most of its problems, a cheapo bomb sight radar solves the rest. I don't think it needs to break mach 2 in order to be a good strike bomber.
3d8a39 No.579921
>>579895
The Cobra would have been a great idea. I'm betting it would have been a better match to the MiG-29 as well.
9278e8 No.579923
>>579910
Full/co/ is a good example of what happens to a board that makes the mistake of adopting that mentality.
It turns to super serious whining, you get banned for obvious jokes, and half your population leaves.
The real solution is to not go full retard with funposting while simultaneously not being a complete no fun allowed faggot that shits his pants at the mere sight of a joke.
Also, I'd say half/k/'s issue lies more with the mods going full cuck like everyone else on the site.
Though their fudd/no fun population pretending they know shit is still cancerous, they wouldn't be in their predicament if the mods actually gave a shit about weapons and allowed mouthbreathing retards to be bullied until they either fuck off or educate themselves.
4931d4 No.579926
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>579918
>I don't think it needs to break mach 2 in order to be a good strike bomber.
Well, when you put it like that I suppose that it doesn't NEED to break mach two. I'm guessing you'd need to redesign the air-frame pretty heavily for supersonic flight as well. Would this Super Canberra have the same potential for air combat as the Tornado? Vid related (and similar stories) would suggest that you don't always need a purpose built fighter to come out on top there.
af0881 No.579927
>>579910
This is why nobody likes you, /pol/.
787169 No.579932
>>579923
Once again. Nailed it. 4chan’s mods allow the cancer and Fudds to fester and they overwhelmingly attract nogunz normies and hard leftists who feel they’re being brave by trolling the “anonymous hacker 4chan”.
Being super serious devolves you into /pol/ and then everybody leaves. Why don’t we have both serious and fun threads?
>F-4E Phantom
>Napalm strike
>Apollo
Burn the normies, anon.
fad2da No.579972
>F-16XL
>deep strike fighter
>Tooth Fairy
3d8a39 No.579978
>>579972
All the pylons you could ever want or need.
1313be No.579982
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>579849
>needing anything more than ASM
7655bf No.579984
>>579849
>implying the enemy would bring enough white paint to not die in an atomic fireball
>implying ground attack isn't the only useful thing planes do anyway
>implying a militia armed with rusty surplus didn't BTFO an entire brigade of T80s in Chechnya
0eeaa1 No.579985
>>579849
Doesn't that make it a bit more realistic when an assembly of civilian voluntaries and veterans is implied?
0eeaa1 No.579987
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>579910
Jesus... Fucking chill, dude.
38e4c9 No.579989
>>579982
>>579984
I didn't mean it as a necessarily bad thing.
After all the most advanced nations in the world are routinely BTFO by highly motivated third worlders.
496c42 No.579991
>>579789
>B1 Lancer
>Bomber Destroyer
>"Holy shit that huge fucking enemy airplane is shitting out more airplanes and or firing some kind of new super weapon"
>>579982
>he didn't use unguided bombs
>he didn't fly so close that it looked like he dragged his balls across the back of a fat whale bitch
>he didn't drop his hot fat load and saturate the back of that oversized ass
lol what a homo
0a2cca No.580006
>>579984
OSHITBOI
>>579991
>not making that flying fat bitch beg for more from garuda-daddy.
0a2cca No.580008
>>579911
lmao get ignored, tryhard
598a64 No.580018
>North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie
>super fuggin' fast strategic bomber
>huwhyte man
28afb9 No.580033
Why did the b52 need a big crew yet the b47 did not?
b269e0 No.580034
>airframe
pic related
>role
CAS/light bomber
I'll have two pots of scalding hot coffee, one for drinking, one for pouring. I think that counts as some kind of flame thrower equivalent. Throw in a few hand grenades and hi-point and I think that'll be enough.
>callsign
AIRWOLF
1313be No.580042
>>580033
The b47 didn't have a gunner or some electronics dick.
93205e No.580051
>production f-12+aim54
>fast and far-reaching interceptor
>darkstar
Name a plane and/or missile that could defeat this. Protip: you can't.
89749e No.580060
MBB Lampyridae
BVR-Fighter
Polygon
Better radar cross section than a F117. I don't need no stupid drones to make your search radar lose me, Estovakia! *cough*VFA-44*cough*
Were there ever any plans on how to get the A12 the fuel it would have needed as an interceptor? Sending a flight up only to have it refuel before climbing to altitude makes a Bf109 look fast, and they're not exactly cut out to compete with jets that can climb vertically.
89749e No.580061
>>580051
Fulcrum.
Designed to stop an XB70, I doubt it'll have problems stopping another high flying mach 3 aircraft.
946abf No.580065
>picrelated
>lone wolf hero plane advanced tech one man airforce after partner tragically dies in act 1
>Strelok
1fc339 No.580077
>>580061
I'm reasonably sure the MiG-29 has nothing to do with the XB-70.
You might be thinking of the predecessor to this, but that kind of sucked, it actually had to be rebuilt after every time it went Mach 3.
93205e No.580081
>>580061 attacking a bomber(or sr-71) is very different from being attacked by an interceptor with standoff range, countermeasures, and superior speed. (a-12 was faster than the sr-71 by .02 mach)
Not sure if the f-12 was meant to have a gun, or if that would even be useful on such an aircraft. But it is the biggest fighter ever flown, so there's enough range to give up some fuel tank space in the nose strakes for guns. I would want two .20mm autocannons.
>>580077
I kinda thought the mig-29 had nothing to do with high speed either, hopefully the kraut explains how that engagement would play as non-autistically as possible
>>580060
I think the long deploy time and high operating cost are what killed it as a fighter, not performance. At the time the .gov needed something they could mass produce to compete with the 3rd gen migs. extra lift on takeoff is something we have mastered, though. Airliners commonly change their wing shape to generate more lift at takeoff, tilting the front and back of the wings down to make a thicker wing and more lift at low speeds. A similar system could possibly be used on the f-12b(not a-12, dif plane) and could be made to use fuel as hydraulic fluid(like the rest of the plane). There are also a bunch of more exotic methods like blown flaps. the downside is this would introduce a shitton more moving parts into an already extremely complicated, expensive, high-performance, but above all old system that still works perfectly.
It sounds right up the air force's alley to me
650701 No.580140
>>CF105
>>Interceptor
>>Daddy's Belt
eb766b No.580165
>>580051
Any two modern fighters, or a single MiG-31 with a competent pilot, could shoot down an F-12.
4931d4 No.580172
>>580165
>Not using a flock of well trained seagulls
3d8a39 No.580175
>>580172
>CIA could use millions of taxpayer dollars to train seagulls to suicide themselves in enemy jet engines.
Holy shit!
252527 No.580201
>>579789
Boots
Infantry
Duckie
4931d4 No.580204
>>580175
Think about it, it's the perfect covert Anti-aircraft weapon, it sets off no warning in the targets cockpit, it's completely immune to any kind of current gen ECM, it'll completely ignore flares and chaff, and there's no way to trace it back to the nation or agency that 'fired' it. The only real flaw with the plan is that the individual components of the flock can move rather slowly when compared to modern jet aircraft, and they have a somewhat lacklustre climb rate which would potentially limit their effectiveness. This could be countered by installing (rectally) a standard, civilian grade, G-class rocket engine into each unit prior to deployment. That should get them up to a reasonable altitude, and given the light weight of the gull payload should accelerate them to a reasonable intercept speed. Personally I blame the animal rights movement for preventing the development and research this technology would need to completely dominate modern anti-aircraft warfare.
93205e No.580231
>>580165
>mig-31 service ceiling: 67,600 ft
>yf12 ceiling: 90,000 ft
>still huge speed superiority
and that was just the prototype.
nothing could compete. Except >>580204 which fucking scares me
imagine training seagulls to fly into jet noises
all you'd need is some speaker accurately reproducing jet intake noises of the desired jet, and some french fries or some shit
e270f1 No.580244
>>579910
fuck off niggerfaggot
eb766b No.580256
>>580231
A relatively minor advantage in altitude and speed doesn't mean a damn thing when you're exchanging hypersonic missiles at ranges of 150+ miles.
9aff8f No.580263
>EC-130
>electronic warfare, jamming enemy communications and scrambling radars and shit
>Super Creep
bf2a11 No.580279
>>P38 Lightning
Never not P38. NEVER NOT.
>>Bomber hunter
You fags remember the custom P38 from Iron Eagles III? The one with the boosters and computer guided ordinance? Oooohhh yesssssssss
>>Callsign: Fiddlesticks
0eeaa1 No.580286
93205e No.580292
>>580286
How do i go about proposing this to the airforce?
I wanna start a company about seagull training that gets bought up by boeing or some shit for 100mil
0eeaa1 No.580293
>>580292
Why use seagulls that are fucking stupid?
Ravens, jackdaws and choughs can fly at least as high and are much more trainable.
4931d4 No.580298
>>580293
Ravens are fucking awesome, why would you waste them on a jet engine? Seagulls are shit tier animals that deserve to be fed through a turbine at high speed. If we're going to train Ravens for anything then let's fit them with cameras and introduce them as the new Huginn & Muninn class reconnaissance drone.
01d6fd No.580303
>>580204
>>580298
>>580293
>>580292
>Rectally installing rockets into seagulls to help them fly into jet engines
Sweet merciful christ I love this board
>XFA-27 with scarface MBS, extra long flaps installed and scramjet engines
>Chief superweapon rapist
>Cowbell
>MFW I get to spam ten missiles at once
4931d4 No.580307
>>580303
The rectal rocket seemed like a more cost effective and responsive delivery method than dropping a few thousand of them out the back of a C-130 at the appropriate altitude. Installing a radio controlled cerebral guidance module (which is possible - https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/05/0501_020501_roborats.html) would help the Bird:Kill ratio drop quite nicely, but you'd need to balance that with adding a failure point and vulnerability to EW capable targets.
0eeaa1 No.580310
>>580303
>>580303
>>XFA-27 with scarface MBS, extra long flaps installed and scramjet engines
My nigga! (though I prefer the non-Scarface skin)
XFA-27 was the only OC donut steel airplane from the franchise that I found awesome instead of meh or awkward/retarded. I wonder how good it would fare IRL and if it would be able to be stealth IRL. How comes there are no modelist/airtunnel autists out there to evaluate fictional planes aerodynamics?
eb766b No.580356
>>580310
The aerodynamic layout looks pretty sound, but it wouldn't be stealthy by any stretch. The biggest problem I can see is that the nose is too small to fit a decent radar.
0a2cca No.580362
>>580356
I wouldn't write it off due to that. The F-35 was designed over a decade ago and has a tiny radome with a stupid-powerful rader and EWS package. Even legacy jets aren't using up the space their radomes were designed for as technology makes smaller electronics possible.
66ed6d No.580370
>>580307
At that point, why bother with the live bird at all? Just stick a butterball on the end of a micromissile and be done with it.
93205e No.580374
>>580293
i have an innate burning hatred for seagulls, they all need to die. Why not breed them specifically for the purpose and remove some enemy planes while your at it
they breed like rats and infest anywhere with food to be scavenged.
the idea would be to strategically plant nests of birds trained to down jets right around the enemy's airports.
>>580310
People who model planes typically don't play flight sims/games all that much. a lot us(includgin me) also don't bother making anything scale fly; it won't fly scale. thrust-weight will never be even close to what it is irl. neither will speed. Also, I've never ever haerd of a modeller running a wind tunnel. Some people get really deep into flying scale models, trying to make it fly as close to the original as possible. It's part of the hobby if you want it to be. As a r/c flyer, though, i would *die* to figure out how to simulate a wind tunnel on my pc.
That xfa-27's nose looks kinda like the baby boomjet, picrel. It's gonna be a nasa testbed for quiet sonic boom research, trying to prove it's possible for consumer supersonic airways over land. They're trying to bring the sonic boom down to 120dcb from 160-180. One of the things they're trying to use to accomplish this is the flat nose, like the xfa-27.
The engine layout reminds me of the yf-23, but with the tomcat's sweeping wings. It does look like it definitely doesn't need so much tail area to me, though. The high canard dihedral seems strange to me. That said, i've never even tried to design anything for supersonic. It's an entirely new set of rules once you get to .85 mach, you start having to make design compromises for mobility subsonic vs transonic vs supersonic.
Also, scramjets are a meme. Turboramjets are where it's at.
e136fa No.580375
>>580310
>How comes there are no modelist/airtunnel autists out there to evaluate fictional planes aerodynamics?
Lucky for you that Kotobukiya just announced an XFA-27 model kit. Throw that in a wind tunnel and you can test it yourself.
93205e No.580376
forgot pic of final boomjet model(this is the one they're constructing now)
Looks an awful lot like that xfa-27, doesn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Supersonic_Technology
4931d4 No.580378
>>580370
I was considering the cost of training a few thousand birds per aircraft downed vs the cerebral implant (trying to control for the added failure points that adding electronics brings in) dropping that ratio significantly closer to 1 bird per aircraft. At that point the bird becomes an organic set of control surfaces and the various electronic components aside from the control receiver, and has got to be much cheaper than any other way to fulfil those functions.
0eeaa1 No.580383
>>580374
>The high canard dihedral seems strange to me.
I think it's trying to imitate stealths' planform trapezoid surfaces.
228f24 No.580389
>>580376
>4k forward facing camera instead of a regular canopy for forward visibility
>that He-162 tier engine arrangement
>that huge fukn nose cone
>three-surface configuration
>tiny additional horizontal stabilizers on top of the vertical stabilizer
93205e No.580434
>>580383
I have a feeling the canard dihedral is to stop a vortex trailing down either side of the nose. To me, it looks like they are angled radially from the centerline of the engine.
I wonder if these sound-reducing improvements also help out on drag? Could these jets be pushed faster or use less powerful engines?
>>580378
Adding a radio receiver means they can be spotted by a good enough broadband radar. It's best to just train them to fly into the intakes. It'll have a horrible effect on pilot morale, trust me.
029ae9 No.580468
>>580077
You are correct. I did mean the 25.
>>580081
Size doesn't mean much when your engines also burn fuel at a rate never seen before. Besides, what are going to do with those cannons? Dogfight at Mach3?
029ae9 No.580469
>>580468
I'm sorry, I'm retarded.
>forgot deletion Pw
>mentions 25 instead if 31
I think i'll show myself out.
4931d4 No.580472
>>580434
>It's best to just train them to fly into the intakes
As a way to ensure that the weapon is completely and utterly undetectable and impossible to counter yes. The Autist in me just wanted to find a way to give it a 100% kill probability (or as close as possible). I hadn't considered the effect on morale you mention there though. I suppose an engine just bursting into flames without warning or apparent cause has got to shit you up pretty quickly.
9a5bbd No.580476
>>580356
>but it wouldn't be stealthy by any stretch
I kinda disagree. It seems trying to follow basic planform design (for example the canards are angled at the same degree as the wing in full swept mode), trying to avoid circular angles in the airframe and exhaust, it uses flat and angled polyhedral surfaces on the airframe and trapezoid aerodynamic surfaces, and its nose and LERXs are pretty similar to the predominant stealth fighter configuration of IRL though much more elongated. Also its in game cost, more than double the price of F-22, potentially implies heavy use of RAM, composites, carbon fiber and ceramics. I could picture it being stealthier than the Super Hornet and the F-15SE, the most obvious problems are its variable geometry wing (which some concept designs for F-22N imply that it isn't mutually exclusive with stealth) and its lack of space for internal weapon bays.
9ceb32 No.580609
>G550 CAEW
>AEW&C
Gotta give you goyim a nice, clear view of the sky, for a price, hehe
>Shlomo-1
8718b8 No.580624
>>580051
A surface to air missile. Why do you think SR-71 got cancelled? But if we're talking dream projects, MiG-41 is closer to being in service than F-12 ever will.
>>580376
>names it SST
>even though that means "single stage to"
Was it designed by people who aren't familiar with the aerospace community?
8f8779 No.580625
>>579789
>Sopwith Camel TF.1
>Ground attack
>"Winston"
8781ab No.580638
>>580476
I find the fb-22 to be the best concept.
Stealthy,big payload, and a 2nd seat.
0a2cca No.580640
228f24 No.580667
>>580476
While we're on the topic of discussing the viability of fictional fighter aircraft designs in real-world scenarios, will there ever be fully enclosed cockpits coupled with brain-computer interfaces?
61e3f8 No.580671
>a-10
>ground-attack aircraft
>leftypol bo
4931d4 No.580683
>>580667
>fully enclosed cockpits coupled with brain-computer interfaces
Can you think of any advantage big enough to warrant that kind of (massive) R&D project?
e53f50 No.580688
>>580683
>muh stealth
>muh jobs
Or Lockheeb decides to go for it.
4931d4 No.580690
>>580688
>Lockheed sells its hyperfuturistic F-53 'Brainwave' aircraft to most of NATO
>It's released with extensive press coverage praising its cutting edge Neural-link piloting systems
>Slowly reports leak out of the squadrons piloting the brainwave
>Reports of 'sitting in a box, with electrodes plugged into your skull, you can't see shit and the goddamn computer doesn't do anything'
>Some claims suggest that at altitudes in excess of 15 feet above sea level the electronics deliver taser strength shocks directly to the pilots balls
>Pentagon declares that a committee is reviewing the evidence, and that Lockheed has offered an early-life upgrade package for only twice the cost of the original aircraft.
2268c4 No.580692
>>580667
Brain-computer interfaces are, for the time being, science fiction. A 'virtual cockpit', completely enclosed with external cameras and a wrap-around view screen is much more likely, but I can't see it as anything other than a reliability nightmare. What are you supposed to do when the software shits the bed and you can't even use the Eyeball Mk1 Mod0 as a backup?
Remember that time when a F-22 squadron flew over the International Date Line and damn near had to bail out because a software glitch shut down every computerized system on the ship?
228f24 No.580700
>>580692
An enclosed cockpit might have its use for muh stealth and other purposes >>580376 so I wouldn't discount it happeding at some point, brain-computer interfaces assuming they'll ever be viable however are much more suited for remote controlled drones.
>that time when a F-22 squadron flew over the International Date Line and damn near had to bail out because a software glitch shut down every computerized system on the ship
Is there anything Lockheeb can't fuck up?
4931d4 No.580701
>>580700
>Is there anything Lockheeb can't fuck up?
Just thinking. What would happen if Lockheed actually, intentionally, tried to screw up a project? Would they screw up the screwing up and accidentally produce the most perfectly built & designed X ever? Or would the crater be a few kilometres wide?
93205e No.580716
>>580624
>why do you think the SR-71 was cancelled
Absurd cost, even compared to satellites. Intelligence and recon satellites are what killed the SR-71, not SAMs. They turned out to be more cost-effective for getting pictures of things. A blackbird was never shot down by a SAM. You're thinking of the U-2. Could modern SAMs outrun the SR-71? Are they that much better over what was used in the '80s? i don't think solid rocket motors have advanced much.
And yes, i realize the f-12 is long dead at this point.
QueSST is the name of the program funding the plane. The plane doesn't really have a name just yet, other than 'low-boom demonstrator'. I think it will get an X- designation, though.
Yes. it was named by people who aren't familiar with the aerospace community, politicians. It was designed by lockheeb.
My true dream project would be a single SABRE-engined SSTO strategic antipodal bomber.
The SABRE engine is an as-of-now conceptual engine (every seperate component has been built and tested, and the engine is being developed right now) that combines the best of both airbreathing turbojet engines and closed-cycle rocket engines. Let me try to explain this simply.
>fuel, liquid H2 and liquid O2
>H2 is at about 50 degrees kelvin
>from takeoff to mach5 and 70k feet, the engine functions like a 'regular' turboramjet
>air is pulled in the shock cone intake
>it's hot because mach5
>the air goes through a series of tubes(the precooler) with the liquid hydrogen flowing through them
>which both cools and compresses the air
>it can then be compressed and heated again
This means the engine can reach some really ridiculous speeds without melting. Air intake temp on the SR-71 was around 1000 degrees. Using liquid hydrogen(or other cryogenics) as fuel is the key to going super fast and not melting your engines. the hard part, actually, was not liquifying the air as it came in, because the hydrogen is well below that temperature. the precooler is able to bring the air from around 1000 degrees to -150 before it enters the rest of the engine, in 1/20th of a second. And they've built and demonstrated a prototype one, too.
>once the air is too thin to run the engines, the intakes close fully
>the engines switch to onboard oxygen
>finish the trip to orbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)
The project is being jointly funded by BAE and DARPA, as well as private investors. This is primarily a space launch vehicle, but just imagine the strategic and tactical uses for a turn-key orbital launch. Skylon is designed to take almost 20 tons of cargo to orbit. Imagine if you only needed to deliver a ballistic thermobaric re-entry warhead that weighs maybe 5 tons? you could get away with a single-engined design.
They also have a design for a passenger 'jet' that cruises at mach 5. I don't see that working out due to the cost of using cryogenic hydrogen, but the air force definitely wants an antipodal bomber.
It's a plane that does what an ICBM does.
c6ce82 No.580717
>>580700
>Is there anything Lockheeb can't fuck up?
Welp, at least the quadra-redundant FBW seemed to work.
c6ce82 No.580719
File: 331a249b183cd1d⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 245.26 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, polan can into ace combat.jpg)
>>580667
>will there ever be fully enclosed cockpits coupled with brain-computer interfaces?
Ask Poland.
c6ce82 No.580720
>>580716
> Could modern SAMs outrun the SR-71?
No but MiG-31 mounted long ranged AA missiles most likely could.
eb766b No.580728
>>580716
>Could modern SAMs outrun the SR-71? Are they that much better over what was used in the '80s?
Russia has had SAMs that could reliably hit a Blackbird since 1992, and they phased in an even faster and longer-ranged successor in 2007.
0dbb08 No.580729
>>580716
I don't think you realize S-200 outpaced the SR-71 from its entry into service by twice its speed.
93205e No.580738
>>580729
>s-200 entered service in the 60's
>sr-71 decommissioned in 1990
how come the soviets never shot one down? We both know the usaf was violating soviet airspace.
fbd0eb No.580741
>>580719
>During June 1994, the Polish Ministry of Defense announced that the Skorpion programme would receive no further funding from the Polish government. The abrupt withdrawal of support after having been recognised two years earlier as a government-approved programme was widely attributed to the formation of a new left-wing Polish government led by Waldemar Pawlak
What are they such faggots? We could have gotten blob formations of fighters raining down on cities by now
39632b No.580850
>>580716
>A blackbird was never shot down by a SAM.
A black bird never flown over the USSR either.
All they did was skim the border of the USSR airspace mostly to survey naval bases. And they did so to specifically not get shot at by SA-10 and MiG-25.
On paper even a MiG-25 could theoretically intercept them, so they never risked them.
And after 1986 the soviets had enough MiG-31 on alert to make SR-71 traps, they would send 6 MiG-31 from all side and get them in firing range at the same time meaning certain death for the SR-71. The soviet did that once, the blackbirds stopped skimming the frontier entirely and were pushed back further away and were retired a couple of years later.
While it made sense when it was a full program, just as recon plane when you had satellite that did the job so much better it was nothing than a black hole to throw money in.
>>580738
>how come the soviets never shot one down? We both know the usaf was violating soviet airspace.
The CIA (not the USAF) stopped violating soviet airspace in 1960 after the SA-2 shot a U-2.
And a (very) lucky SA-2 can shoot down a SR-71…
All they did was technical violations (skimming, de facto entering and exiting soviet airspace every few minutes).
Also I don't know where you people are getting the idea that missile don't fly faster and higher than planes.
4931d4 No.580870
>>580850
>Also I don't know where you people are getting the idea that missile don't fly faster and higher than planes.
I'd guess that comes from the SR71. When it was introduced its lowered radar cross section meant that the contemporary Soviet SAMs (circa 1964) would only detect it too late to get a missile up to its altitude in time to hit it. Considering that the SR71 wasn't used for recon deep into Soviet territory I imagine that helped as well. The Swedes regularly managed to get their 1960's vintage Viggens to lock on and get within firing range of the SR71s flying out of RAF airbases (to be fair they did have to be guided in by ground based radar, but apparently the Swedes used this as a semi-regular training exercise. Do you remember when Sweden used to be fun?), so even when it was fresh off the assembly line it wasn't unbeatable. But the fact that it could, technically, outrun (ageing) Soviet SAMs (Mostly due to the limits of their radar) was a large part of its marketing and fanbase after it was declassified - and the meme just kinda stuck; helped, no doubt, by the fact that it is a pretty awesome aircraft.
93205e No.580883
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>580850
I thought it was more about using your altitude and speed to defeat the missile's maximum range.
if you're out flying at mach 3.2 tangent to a sam base (closest approach is 200miles) with 250 mile range and a missile that flies at mach 5, who wins? Does the missile get to the plane or does the plane escape the missile's range?
Assuming the s-200 is moving at mach5 the whole time(it isn't) it will take 2 minutes and 37 seconds to reach the end of its 250 mile range. the sr-17 has 178.54 miles until it's out of range, assuming it doesn't try to turn for a shorter path out, meaning it will take 3 minutes and 21 seconds to exit the missile's range. Since I wasn't counting the missile's acceleration time(probs between 10-30 seconds) and the fact that the sr-71 flies at 85,000 feet(16 miles elevation), and that the sr-71 was flying straight and level, and not attempting to dodge. It looks like it would be close, but in reality, a little bit of planning it all it takes to not get hit.
To me, it looks like the sr-71 still could come closer than any other plane to a SAM site.
>>580870
The swede's knew we were flying those missions beforehand. And their radars weren't able to lock on before 1980, well after the blackbird's peak.
Either way, why aren't you assholes talking about the revolutionary new airbreathing rocket engine? It's like you don't even want mach5+. 400 megawatts of heat transfer. Vid related.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cInXWApcbew
BAE vid of a concept SABRE-powered aircraft for recon and enemy identification. tbh it's too shitty for me want to embed, but it shows they are interested at least.
We are close to being able to board an airplane and fly into orbit.
it won't be sci-fi for long.
23943a No.580886
>>580870
>Do you remember when Sweden used to be fun?
Definitely had one of my favorite planes in service
0dbb08 No.580887
>>580738
That's not an argument of system capability but of politics. How many documented S-200 launches were there against the SR-71 and the A-12?
0dbb08 No.580888
Vega doesn't move at mach 5. It moves in excess of 6 the majority of its time in thinner air. Also, the engagement envelope is provided by the plamya computer. It will not open fire at 200 miles. Try cutting that a bit as well. If the Blackbird overflies the site or enters (even tail aspect) the plamya's continuously calculated engagement zone it will die.
a6e497 No.580893
>>580870
>Do you remember when Sweden used to be fun?
Painfully so.
93205e No.580895
>>580888
In my post >>580883 i used the number listed on wikipedia, 5,600 mph.
So the vega's computer's account for everything I talked about?
Fast and high-flying aircraft reduce the range of SAM rather than become invulnerable to it. We all knew this already.
However, this means there is a significant advantage in going very fast. A modern successor to the sr-71 with a cruise speed of mach 4-5 and a higher operating altitude would defeat vega completely. wikipedia also lists a max target speed of 1200 m/s, probably to prevent it from confusing the target with a missile.
b5f44c No.580918
>>580716
> A blackbird was never shot down by a SAM.
So what, one of the couple of dozen planes in service have to be shot down for them to be considered vulnerable?
>Could modern SAMs outrun the SR-71?
Easily!
SR-71 travels at around mach 3, and can't maneuver very much at those speeds, because its not solid enough and has a fleshy pilot inside.
The kind of missile which would be used to intercept it travels at mach 6 and is designed to hit maneuvering MIRV doing mach 14.
3d8a39 No.580921
>>580893
>Saab 37 Viggen
>Has the ability to reverse it's thrust
>Cluster bombs and radio controlled flair missiles
>Big, comfy, aesthetic as fuck radar screen.
I play DCS a lot, and the Viggin probably the most fun you can get out of a high speed ground attack aircraft.
39632b No.580923
>>580883
>in reality, a little bit of planning it all it takes to not get hit.
Planning is on the side of those with the ground radar stations and the hundreds of missiles pointed at your sole plane.
I think I have a map of old soviet SAM site somewhere and it's ridiculous. Basically it was the great wall of SAMs.
(Can't find it, found a not great one).
6e0937 No.580944
>>580886
Can't believe this was early 50's 2nd gen. It could even pull Cobras 30 years before the Flanker did.
>>580893
Am I the only one thinking that the Viggen looked fugly?
fa6408 No.580953
>>580944
death to those who insult viggen
fcc419 No.580962
>Paper plane
>Eye poker
>Blind Spot
6e0937 No.580967
>>580953
ur waifu is fat! FAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTT
b5f44c No.581012
>>580953
draken looks better, and is better
0dbb08 No.581013
>>580895
Vega's computer accounts for this.
Also see pic related
Are you familiar with the employment ranges and methods Vega uses? Might want to look into that. Also, that "max target speed" is just that- (and cited for the base model S-200, not the vegas that were the majority the blackbird would overfly the later coldwar years, not to mention original Tallinn system still meets requirements for intercept). Square pair does doppler filtering, the speed of the blackbird is well within its filtering range. Lastly, remember that "maximum range" isn't firing range, should not be near the number used for estimation. Even if the number (and it is not) is 50 miles, that's a 100 mile ring of no fly space and maximum range extends that head on. The TTR can track the target far beyond missile kinematic range and fire when the target satisfies requirements- therefore head on and flanking shots can be accomplished even farther than a doctrine-assigned standard launch envelope should the commander decide otherwise. The layout of Combloc S-200 sites was sufficient to kill any NATO craft near its high-priority defense zones (IE leningrad)
b5f44c No.581015
>>581013
>anti aircraft missile
>200kg explosive
>100kg fragments
Fucking lel I'm pretty sure that would sink a frigate.
eb766b No.581058
>>580944
>It could even pull Cobras 30 years before the Flanker did
I want this meme to die already. The J35 was no more capable of a Cobra than an F-100.
eb766b No.581102
>>581071
Yes, we've all seen that video a million times. It's still not a Cobra. I even made a pretty picture to explain why you're a retard.
Note that this isn't even a terribly difficult maneuver, any jet with a decent amount of pitch authority can reproduce it. In fact, the whole reason why they're doing those exercises to begin with is because the J35 is unusually bad at this maneuver: like most early swept-wing jets it's prone to uncontrollable pitch-up if the AoA exceeds around 15 degrees, so these guys are learning the special procedures needed to recover when that happens.
93205e No.581104
>>581013
the 1200 m/s (mach 3.55) number was specifically for vega-e, not the base model. Every source i see puts it between mach 3.5 and mach 4. Still well above the sr-71's max speed, but definitely not impossible to defeat. We just need to build a faster plane.
>>581058
>>581071
Just don't pay attention to eb766b, all his posts are fucking retarded
>>581102
in a combat situation, does the 'real' cobra provide an actual advantage? can it be performed faster or something? in my experiencewarthunder being slightly above and behind someone is basically the best place to be.
eb766b No.581116
>>581104
The Cobra is purely for show, the last thing you want to do in a real dogfight is come to a near-complete halt. The reason why it's such a big deal is because it demonstrates that the plane has both really good post-stall handling and a good T/W, which are both very very valuable in a dogfight.
e74612 No.590379
>>579789
Um…how did they get past the Atlantic/Pacific? I mean I'm just saying we have two Oceans and the world's greatest Navy. They're not getting here. If we had a 3rd rate Navy they still couldn't get to within a thousand miles of the coast.
Also
>Spitfire IX
>Thrashing NOTSIES, wot wot!
> Cricket
>>579795
You blithering bastard, I was going to post that! Drat! Now I shall have to think of something else!
c9e63f No.590522
>>581116
It's a desperation maneuver but it's a guaranteed overshoot as a close and personal defensive maneuver. Also it would be reckless to use it this way but in combination with a wide-boresight all-aspect missile like the R-73 and HMD (and an IRST) it can bet on ending a dogfight the moment it starts as the Luftwaffe exercises between the F-16 and the MiG-29 demonstrated.
a02cb2 No.595902
>B-50 Bomber
>Tactical nuclear payload deployment
>Rice cooker
e2e7f1 No.600776
>>579789
>airframe
Q400
>role
Moral support
>callsign
"Sky King"