[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



Instead of the F-35
>>
No
>>
>>40885177
>Instead of
No.
In addition to
Yes.
>>
>>40885177

Are the new 15's or 16's stealth aircraft? No? Well there's your answer.
>>
>>40885177
Yes but the US has to manufacture millions to fill the skies of Russia/China with holy fire
>>
>>40885177
Shut up kid. IT's already deep in delivery and refinement, ahaha, The US would be better with this gauge railroad track not that one! It's over with, dipshit
>>
>>40885177
Absolutely, in a continental defense role.
>>
>>40885177
nope
>>
>better served with new built F15s and F16s
Absolutely not. Go learn some things about air combat and come back.
>>
No, what a retarded question
>>
I like the idea of using F-15s as missile trucks for stealth aircraft.
>>
>>40885418
listen retarded nigga, that's not how air combat work.
>>
>>40885424
What do you mean? The AF has literally said as much.

They are going to use the sensors on the F35 to track and set up fire solutions, and data link the info to the F15x because it can carry more munitions.
>>
No. It makes the most logistical sense to have your fighter force be 95% F-35s and 5% mach 2.5+ interceptors for when they are too low and slow against certain targets.
>>
>>40885424
That’s literally how the newer F-15’s are gonna be used retard
>>
File: Silent Eagle.png (599 KB, 858x501)
599 KB
599 KB PNG
>>40885424
Thing can carry up to 16 AMRAAM's
>>
>>40886745
Why can't F-35 do that?
>>
>>40886745
Sexy
>>
>>40886745
I mean, F35-chan can carry up to 14 AMRAAMs, is it really worth it dragging an old and busted frame around for 2 additional missiles?
>>
>>40886829
You know they're new frames. They don't cost as much to service as f35 per flight hour. And f35 "stealth" kinda gets defeated when you put missiles on every hard point.
>>
>>40885177
no.
obviously.
>>
>>40886838
>*ignores the benefit of streamlined logistics*
>>
>>40886844
What specific logistics are you even talking about? The one time cost of delivery? Fueling, arming, maintenance, and repair are going to be easier.
>>
>>40886867

Thank fuck you don't work in logistics.
>>
>>40886885
Good job avoiding the question. Do you avoid work IRL in the same way? That would explain alot.
>>
No, considering the navy and marine corps don't use f15s or f16s. Maybe for the airforce its a good idea but the marine corps is quite enjoying their new f35s.
>>
>>40886745
>"Mobius Squadron intensifies"
>>
>>40886775
Not enough hardpoints. If you wanna take a stealth craft and load up every hardpoint with missiles just take the F-22 since it'll carry way more.
>>
Is a country that only has f-18s really upgrading by buying the f-35a?
>>
America has fucking everything. They have the A10, f16, f15, f18, f22 and F35. Plus drones. The F35 works fine for them because it's meant to be complimented by the f22 or f15.
>>
Hot take: F15 is outdated garbage plen and only poor countries use them.
>>
>>40887193
It's the same price as the F35, but it goes twice as fast. It's much better for intercepting.
>>
>>40885177
Yes - for the following reason.

the F-35 carrying missiles on external hardpoints is no longer stealthy, ruining the "stealth" angle.

the F-35 is so expensive you could pay not only for the F-15s and F-16s to replace the old ones, but also pay for all the flight hours of training that are being not given to pilots right now. The F-15 for example is not going to be defeated anytime soon, and you are better off having a pilot with tons of training in a F-15 then a pilot who has limited training in a F-35 due to both budget issues and the fact the F-35 maintenance issues.

The main good points of the F-35 is for the marines the fact it can replace harriers and the great radar.
>>
>>40886745
Black gloss makes anything sexy and modern.
>>
>>40886844
>35% parts commonality
>"streamlined logistics"
>>
Anyone who thinks the 35 can be replaced with 4th gen fighters is a fool who knows nothing of modern air warfare.
>>
>>40887291
Like Israel who refused to buy the F-35 and is upgrading their fleet with the money instead?
>>
>>40885177
Absolutely not. Shanahan the shill needs to get the hell up outta the SecDef chair and someone who knows what they're doing needs in. There is zero purpose to handing out Boeing more gibs. Maybe if they were able to quickly design a Mach 2+ LO interceptor to suit the AF's needs, but we don't need more F-15s.
>>
>>40887408
Israel bombs sandniggers with shitty IADs and even shittier operators. The US trying to square off with China and Russia. There's no comparison.
>>
File: McDonnell-Douglas-F-15C.jpg (290 KB, 960x1270)
290 KB
290 KB JPG
>>40885177
No, neither have any stealth capability whatsoever, which means we'd have only the F-22's we have left and no easy way to replace them as they age or encounter accidents. Meanwhile the F-35 is also stealth, newer computer systems, a better radar, etc and will be mass produced for decades to come. Take the positive traits of the F15 and F16 and roll them into a new dedicated combat and interception drone that can fly with F-35s.
>>
>>40886775
It can carry 12 with external twin racks. That's more than enough.
>>
>>40885177
isnt us ordering new "stealthy" f-15s?
>>
>>40887474
>Drone
Next gen fighter will have advanced auto-pilot, but a pilot will still be needed in case something goes wrong. It's not that unmanned fighters won't exist, but they'll be shitty aerial cannon fodder to give the real planes something to shoot at.
>>
>>40885177
The USAF requested funding for F-15EXs already.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-air-force-sees-f-15ex-as-cheap-and-quick-fix-456480/
>>
>>40887808
No. Nobody ever bought the Silent Eagle.
>>
>>40887291
Nobody is suggesting replacing F-35s with F-15s. You're arguing against nothing.
>>
>>40887955
That's literally what the OP is asking.
>>
Well, they need the F-15 as an interceptor because the F-35 just don't have the speed, also as a bombtruck because F-15 can carry more payload
>>
There are a couple of good arguments for the F15x. It's a great interceptor and great for national defense. It's not meant to be a front line fighter.

It also has an existing supply, training, and logistics chain. According to Boeing the aircrews don't even need conversion training.

It also gives the AF air frame diversity. In the if the F-22, or F-35 get grounded for some reason there are still usable airframes around. Not to mention the fact it will keep the F-15 line alive a bit longer.


We also don't know the full details of the contract yet. What we do know is Boeing is offering the jets on an FFP vehicle and the offer was made while in discussion with the AF about rebuilding the existing C-eagle fleet.

My assumption is Boeing is offering the jets at a good price that the AF cannot refuse.
>>
>>40888098
>According to Boeing the aircrews don't even need conversion training
Yeah, that was so true the last time B*eing said it
>>
>>40885177
Obviously. Nothing against soldiers or majority of engineers.... but the Military Industrial Complex is completely corrupt.

It's all about money and power. They literally research how to (((inspire))) and (((motivate))) their (((target audiences))) with BS reasoning for why we need to waste billions of dollars every year.

By the way if anyone describes you as a "labor cost" or a "target audience" you should beware.
>>
>>40887408
You mean like Israel which was the first nation to use the F-35 in wartime operations?
>>
>>40888166
Every country that means something on the international stage has a MIC of some sort. Doesn't mean there isn't room for corruption, but it's important to be able to develop new weapons without relying on others.
>>
>>40887193
Name a better air to air fighter than the f15
>>
>>40888293
F-22
>>
>>40888344
And we have a small, finite amount of F22s. The F22 is great for flying in contested space. The F15 serves great in the Air National Guard role. We are a large country with many different needs for our aircraft. 5th gen planes are great, but they work better when supported by massive amounts of 4th gen planes.
>>
>>40888144
Your comment refutes nothing.
>>
>>40888382
>The F15 serves great in the Air National Guard role
Which is a made-up role that we don't need at all.
>>
>>40888415
>A major power has zero need to enforce its own airspace.

??
>>
>>40888438
How many times has the USAF had to enforce its own space in the last 100 years?
>>
>>40888415
You only think we don’t need it because the f15 is so effective.
>>
>>40888438
I think what he's saying is that we don't need to buy last-gen fighters just because they might be good at intercepting geriatric vodkarat bombers and retards flying cessnas
>>
>>40888446
That’s the fucking point. We haven’t had to defend our airspace, because our airspace is dominated.
>>
>>40888460
The f15 has the best record of any air to air fighter currently flying
>>
>>40888470
Yes? It's also old. The P-51 also had a great record,doesn't mean we should buy them
>>
>>40885177
No
>>
File: 1549688249476.jpg (185 KB, 785x595)
185 KB
185 KB JPG
>>40886745
muh dick
>>
>>40888478
>it’s old
The US is buying new airframes. All of the logistical stuff is already in place.
>p-51
We don’t use p51s because they are obsolete now. F15s can take on any threat presented to them.
>>
https://www.google.com/amp/s/taskandpurpose.com/f15x-air-force-fighter/amp/
>The U.S. Air Force has been secretly organizing a plan to replace its F-15 C/D fleet with brand spanking new F-15X Eagle air superiority fighters, the Drive reported on Wednesday. This move could take the heat off of the service’s handful of F-22 Raptors or make up for F-35 shortcomings — and cushion the expenses involved in operating and maintaining two 5th-generation fighters.
>>
The purpose of the f15x is to be able to haul large amounts of AMRAAMs. A pair of F35s in stealth mode would travel ahead of a pack of F15s. The F35s can get close to enemy fighters, and with its advanced sensor suite and datalink capabilities it would send target info to the F15s. That sets up the F15s to deliver air to air missle from beyond visual range. The F15 isn’t a replacement for the F35 or vice versa. They complement eachother.
>>
>>40888496
>The US is buying new airframes
The design is old.
>F15s can take on any threat presented to them
No, they can't. They aren't viable in the face of 5th generation aircraft which could proliferate bigfully in the near future.
>>
>>40888572
>the design is old
Still extremly relevant and effective today
>They aren't viable in the face of 5th generation aircraft which could proliferate bigfully in the near future.
Name one aircraft that isn’t the F22 that can take on F15s
>>
>>40888601
>Name one aircraft that isn’t the F22 that can take on F15s
F-35, J-20, J-31, SU-57 if it ever gets finished, EF-2000 & Rafale
>>
>>40886867
>>40886896
>What specific logistics are you even talking about? Fueling, arming, maintenance, and repair are going to be easier.
No.
For every unique airframe design you field, you have to also ship and maintain a parts store necessary to deal with any potential maintenance issue. That means effectively everything in the aircraft but the frame itself. Each additional airframe generally doubles your logistical complexity in terms of cataloging the different parts necessary to maintain your aircraft. You also often require specialized tools for each aircraft, meaning additional work space storage and spares strain on the logistics. Additionally, each airframe will need personnel specifically trained to maintain that aircraft. Each of these specialized personnel are next to useless for anything but the most general work on another airframe. The number of personnel required to maintain a high operation rate increases at a rate greater than 1 for each additional airframe type you are expected to maintain. So now you have to spend extra money and logistics capacity training and maintaining additional personnel.
Do you get how retarded your statement is now?
>>
>>40888614
>f35
Stopped reading there. The f35 as an air superiority platform is a joke
>>
>>40887266
>the F-35 carrying missiles on external hardpoints is no longer stealthy, ruining the "stealth" angle.
Not how stealth works.
>the F-35 is so expensive you could pay not only for the F-15s and F-16s to replace the old ones, but also pay for all the flight hours of training that are being not given to pilots right now. The F-15 for example is not going to be defeated anytime soon, and you are better off having a pilot with tons of training in a F-15 then a pilot who has limited training in a F-35 due to both budget issues and the fact the F-35 maintenance issues.
You are now aware that the single most expensive component in a combat aircraft is the pilot. The US easily expends more than double the cost of the aircraft in training the pilot in its use.
>>
>>40888614
One of F-15x's bullet points is it has a passive active warning survivability system that can detect stealth aircraft.
>>
>>40888694
>The f35 as an air superiority platform is a joke
It has the best sensor suite of any fighter aircraft, is stealthy (Some estimates have it stealthier than the F-22), has incredibly good data-linking and sensor fusion abilities, respectable kinematic performance, and carries its weapons internally (6x AMRAAM and 2 sidewinders). You're fucking retarded.
>>
The absolute state of lightning whores.
>>
>>40888699
>>the F-35 carrying missiles on external hardpoints is no longer stealthy, ruining the "stealth" angle.
>Not how stealth works.
Then why have missile compartments at all.
>>
>>40888727
>it has the best sensor suite of any fighter aircraft, is stealthy (Some estimates have it stealthier than the F-22), has incredibly good data-linking and sensor fusion abilities, respectable kinematic performance, and carries its weapons internally (6x AMRAAM and 2 sidewinders). You're fucking retarded.
It can only carry 4 AMRAAMs internally and 0 sidewinders. Having good sensors doesn’t make up for the fact that it’s slow and has bad maneuverability.
>>
>>40888761
Yes it does
>>
>>40888761
>can only carry 4 AMRAAMs internally and 0 sidewinders
Not with the block 4 update.
>Having good sensors doesn’t make up for the fact that it’s slow and has bad maneuverability
It isn't really slow considering you have to carry all of those 16 AMRAAMs externally in the F-15x (Not sure why you'd need that many in the first place) causing a lot of drag. Ditto with maneuverability. Not sure why you're going to bat for a company who's only successful venture into the fighter business was buying a failing corporation that produced some of the biggest blunders of the 90's. They've failed to keep up in the military aircraft market and are trying to hawk a 50 year old aircraft with new paint to the USAF because their guy is warming the SecDef's seat.
>>
Had the f15 ever been shot down by an enemy aircraft? I know the F15 has over 100 air to air kills to date
>>
>>40888890
No , it has a spotless combat record.
>>
>>40888962
That’s incredible. I couldn’t imagine racking up over 100 air to air kills without a single loss.
>>
>>40885177
Absolutely, I'd buy 200 F15X. Cut order of F35 to like 800 overall mainly buy F35B/C

Start designing a 5.5 plane to replace F22

enhanced F135 engine twin
baked in stealth coatings
enhanced radar
range equal or greater than F14
weapons bay large amount enough for 4x wwvram and 6x bvraam missiles
long rang infrared seeker eots
etc
>>
>>40886838
> And f35 "stealth" kinda gets defeated when you put missiles on every hard point.
RCS will still be hugely reduced compared to a non LO airframe
>>
>>40887824
There are already some fuzzy logic programs that can fight on even footing with human pilots while the humans are flying simulations of more advanced planes while the drones are denied simulated BVR weapons entirely. Granted the human pilot will always be there to make a decision but drones could easily act as missile buses and escorts to the human pilot without needing direct oversight. You could tell them what to do and they'll soon be smart enough to figure everything else out on their own.
>>
>>40888572
On a cost to cost basis, yeah, they are. They've got a 50/50 shot against a J-20 while costing half the price, ergo meaning that twice as many F-15s can be in the air than J-20s, covering more space, slanting things in their favor so long as the logistics can keep up with supporting that many craft.
>>
>>40885177
Given the current invasion of the US mainland, the US would be better served with more A-10s than with any of these planes.
All of these planes are fucking useless as is the Air Force. These fucks haven't done shit to defend the US.
>>
>>40889271
>On a cost to cost basis, yeah, they are. They've got a 50/50 shot against a J-20 while costing half the price
1. The J-20 is supposed to cost around 50-60 million USD per unit. I can't find an exact source for the F-15X's cost, but it seems to be around 100M per.
2. I'm not sure about 50/50 shot, and that isn't how we fight anyways.
>slanting things in their favor so long as the logistics can keep up with supporting that many craft
They don't. Our pilots(and other personnel) are extremely expensive.
>>
>>40889082
That's absolutely true. But the idea of an F35 scout with the smallest RCS possible backed by F15X "missile trucks" sounds pretty good.
>>
>>40886745

Try 24 AMRAAMs for the F-15X

>carry more than two dozen air-to-air missiles


https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2018/07/19/boeing-pitches-f-15x-fighter-concept-us-air-force-report.html
>>
>>40886745
>>40889344

Furthermore, for those who don't understand - this matters, and it matters a lot.

The F-15 can fly a lot higher and faster than the F-35, which means that it will be able to launch waves of missiles with different guidance types (IR, active radar, home-on-radar) and start turning away from the F-35 before the F-35 is even in range to launch its 4 AIM-120s (not sure if they even can get the extended range version to fit in the bay).

> but muh stealth

It emits, it gets shot at.
>>
>>40889336
Right and to expand on this if said enemy SAM/air defense network is taken down quickly enough the F-15Xs could come in instantly for a turkey shoot.
>>
>>40889399
There's little chance of the F-15 actually reaching those theoretical maximums when it's kitted out with however many missiles and the fuel tanks it needs to get any sort of decent range.
>>
>>40889504

A fighter will generally drop fuel tanks on contact.
>>
What kind of autism does it take to shill for a 50-year old Cold War tech developed during the Vietnam War?
>>
>>40889651
So after the stealth fighter has already seen it, fired, and turned around. Very "useful".
>>
>>40889881
>Looks at AR15
Uhhhhh....
>>
>>40889893
>Looks at ENIAC
Uhhh.......
>>
>>40889902
>looks at fax machine
Uhhh....
>>
>>40889881
I want you to google just about anything in current service and look at the date it was first rolled out. Most military tech is fucking old due, the Abrams turns forty soon.
>>
>>40889886

If the F-35 "sees" the F-15, the F-35 had its radar on, which means the F-15 saw it way, way outside of either fighter's engagement range.

There is nothing about the F-35 that allows it to host a more powerful radar, an EODAS is a gimmick easily mimicked by FLIR on the nose.

If a plane emits (AESA or otherwise), it will get detected just like any other plane emitting.

Then, a little mentioned fact is that both the F-35 and F-15 TOW DECOYS which emit, so 4 missiles is really just enough to chase the decoy and some flares.
>>
Even as all military powers are developing 5th gen stealth fighters for the past three decades, /k/ has discovered that stealth is useless and you should just fly really fast and carry a bunch of missiles.
>>
>>40890189
>he thinks LPI is a joke

you do you sweetie
>>
>>40890223
Based .223 poster recognizing /k/'s superiority.
>>
>>40889993
Browning M2 is 100 years old therefore the Sopwith Camel is just as good as the F35.
>>
>>40890189
>a gimmick easily mimicked by FLIR on the nose
I think you miss the key difference between the "Distributed" part of the EODAS and "Forward Looking" part of FLIR.
EODAS is miles better for battlespace data processing because it can scan for targets that the pilot is not looking directly at, and alert the pilot to threats and targets outside of his immediate line of sight.
FLIR/IRST only looks where you point it.
>>
This is a great article on the benefits of the F15 as an interceptor, which is an extremly vital role for a country as large as the United States.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/when-f-15-better-than-f-22-f-35-2016-8
>>
>>40888415
At the very least they need to guard the Arctic from Russian incursions since the Canadians are letting their air force rot on the vine. That's why there are F-22s up in Alaska.
>>
>>40890769
They would fit that role perfectly.
>>
>>40890251
Theres a difference. aviation started hitting a plateau around the 70s with the F-X program. Computing power, optics, engine efficiency, have increased. But airframes have stagnated. You can upgrade the guts of an F15 and it'd be viable today. just look at the SU27-SU37. Or look at how the F22 was developed in 1991 and has no peer yet.
>>
>>40888713
>a passive active system

You are retarded.
>>
File: 1552058291533.jpg (183 KB, 847x740)
183 KB
183 KB JPG
>>40885177
the US would be better served by spending 1% of the money that goes into building F22s into some basic fucking security for proprietary research and data so the chinks and russians stop stealing billion dollars worth of research and catching up or superseding our own technology immediately after we create it

for some reason, the boomers in charge of our intelligence and national defense have not figured this very simple and basic economical fact out
>>
>>40886838
Age is one of the biggest factors of maintenance costs. It's why the engineering nightmare that is the B1 is cheaper per hour to fly than the B-52
>>
>>40890189
>what is low probability of intercept: the post
>>
>>40885184
FPBP
>>
>>40888982
Israel has shot down a lot of Syrian MiG-21s in it
>>
>>40891388
True but RAM on F35s and F22s supposedly wears faster and is expensive as hell to replace. Supposedly. I get this info from "defense updates" on jewtube.
>>
>>40888543
>22,000lbs
>1 engine

Does this make sense?
>>
>>40888415
Do we need hundreds of Full time AF fighter pilots? Can the National Guard allow pilots to keep skills up while working somewhere else and rotate them through for short periods of active duty thereby helping the budget while keeping a larger pool of trained and available pilots? Seems to me that it works out that way. That is the whole point of a Reserve or Guard. How else can the AF keep a 112 Billion black budget going?
>>
>>40888478
A turboprop version would be useful.
A1K similarly.
>>
>>40893213
Pilots are probably the least of our worries.
>>
>>40893324
Pilots are a problem. The Air Force basically just functions as a free training program for the commercial aerospace sector.
>>
>>40893472
Would you rather train pilots or pay for niggers welfare?
>>
>>40890235
>>40891579
That L in that acronym stands for low not no. Emiting anything gets you detected against good modern EW.
>>
>>40888727
>It has the best sensor suite of any fighter aircraft in US inventory
fixed that for you
>>
the f-35 is supposed to be a cheaper, easier to manufacture version of the f-22, same idea as the f-16 being a cheaper version of the f-15
>>
>>40893227
You mean like the Piper Enforcer?
>>
>>40894560
name the aircraft that has a better one globally then
>>
>>40885177
>Fail 35 can't fly with bricked ALIS
of course
>>
File: this guy.jpg (44 KB, 700x360)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
>>40885177
Damn, I remembered this military expert dude that always shows up on documentaries on some channels involving military aircraft, and would sometimes say that "better F-15's and F-16's are better", and turns out he's now a tranny
>>
>>40893124
It's quite a powerful engine and the F-35 is abnormally small for a 5th gen fighter.
>>
>>40895330
god damn I hated that faggot instantly as soon as it opened it mouth
>>
>>40888543
>>40893124
>>40895363
And don't forget that the picture is some fucking random madskillz made by an ordinary imageboard manchild.
>>
>>40885424
It actually is though. Read about FDL and JHMCS2
>>
>>40887746
Kinda defeats the purpose of being stealth though.

>>40886829
F-15s are still putting in work man. E's are deployed all the time and they just sent a bunch of C's to Syria as well.
>>
>>40887474
Your image is of a C model incase care to update the name.
>>
>>40888446
About once a month in Alaska. 2-4 times a year down in Guam.

The coast guard is doing it constantly with cartel drug planes.
>>
>>40896272
What does the coast guard intercept with?
>>
>>40888407
400 dead 737 MAX passengers will disagree with Boeing.
>>
>>40893124
When the dry thrust of your engine is 43,000 lbs, sure. The F135 is the most powerful engine ever put into a fighter.
>>
>>40889399
>The F-15 can fly a lot higher and faster
We NEED the Celestial Eagle to comeback
>>
>>40897778
It’s amazing how the F15 has the only air to sattelite kill in history. Stealth is great, but at this time all stealth fighters underperform the F15. So in short, the F15 and F35!complement eachother. Each performing tasks that the other plane can’t do.
>>
F15 could kill the f35
>>
>>40897601
Civilian and military contracts are not even remotely similar.
>>
>>40897874
Why don't they just make a cheap version of the f22? Something as fast as the f-15, but not painfully unstealthy.
>>
>>40902769
This would be a twin engine f35
>>
File: 088954.jpg (93 KB, 1280x720)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>>40903033
It seems so silly that the F35 is the only plane that western countries can buy. The most valid complaint about the F35 is that it's slow and can't fly high enough to engage the su30 from a favourable position. All they had to do was give the F35 more speed. But they couldn't because of that damn F35b, which held back the design of the other variants.
>>
>>40890189
The f35 can detect the f15 with passive sensors.
>>
>>40885177
No
>>
>>40903380
Those speeds are mostly tactically irrelevant, and you shouldn't be flying that high anyways. Any Sukhoi that's flying above the F-35's service ceiling is going to be easily seen against the sky and is going to eat an AMRAAM that won't lose energy very quickly in that thin air. Realistically, Sukhois and MiGs would be trying to hug the deck and get lost in the terrain. They're not going to win a medium or long range BVR shootout against a target they can't see. R-27ETs offer their best chance.
>>
>>40886745
this thing is just BEGGING to stick a few of those up a sukhoi's ass
>>
>>40888415
That is a dumbest comment in this thread, which is saying something
>>
>>40889881
have you seen how old most miiltary tech is anon?
>>
>>40886745
Between the gloss paint and those intakes, this image always reminds me of pic related.
>>
>>40885177
instead - nope
Should we cut the production and buy cheaper f-15 and F16 frames - yes

Stealth is a meme. If you design a plane around stealth being its big thing and when new radar tech makes stealth not that great, you end up with the F-117 getting shot down by serbs
>>
>>40903610
A pop-up attack would likely be the best bet for bagging an F-35 with a 4th gen aircraft, especially if some intelligence was gathered along the lines of the take-off times/flight paths needed to bring down the F-117 over Serbia.
If targets had recently been hit by F-35s, and KC-135s were spotted somewhere, simply positioning aircraft between the target and the tankers might be able to get an Su-27 in range where IRST gives it a chance.
>>
>>40907119
Pretty much. Try and stay lost in the terrain until you're close, then pop up with IR missiles. The R-27ETs are their best chance at this because of their extended range in comparison to most IR guided missiles.
>>
>>40906987
>every Persian guy ever
God, I miss anti-flash white
>>
>>40909269
Needs half a ton of tacky crap on the dash



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.