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

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: YF-23-photo.jpg (180 KB, 1130x644)
180 KB
180 KB JPG
Reminder: this is still an option. Findom-35 isn't the only choice.
>"MUH VTOL!"
Shut up!
>>
How do you plan to launch it off helicopter carriers?
>>
>>48416283
I don't. Just slap on a tailhook and set it up for steam catapult.
>>
File: Eclipse phase.png (53 KB, 190x508)
53 KB
53 KB PNG
>>48416269
>>
>>48416335
Oof.
>>
>>48416314
So we're still stuck in need of a Harrier replacement.
>>
>>48416365
Make new Harriers with improved shit.
>>
File: 1592205176764.jpg (321 KB, 1080x2167)
321 KB
321 KB JPG
>>48416269
Yeah, let's replace one white albatross with another.
>>
>>48416269
No it isn't. The design is 30 years old and almost everyone who worked on it is retired now.
>>
File: 1607711392309.gif (294 KB, 220x233)
294 KB
294 KB GIF
>>48416385
>"just make [ancient design that was designed for a world that no longer exists]"
>>
>>48416459
Not really any older than the F-22.
>>
>>48416269
>Tail says ATF
I had no idea they had such assets at their disposal. I guess Waco and Ruby Ridge really have them spooked even all these years later.
>>
File: 1581817450769.jpg (109 KB, 1000x714)
109 KB
109 KB JPG
>>48416459
we'll if we're just wishing at this point
>>
>>48416459
We're buying new F-15s. That's an older design.
>>
>>48416562
The F-15 still has the performance to be worth keeping around.
Trying to remake the Harrier is a waste when the F-35B brings so much to the table. If you're going to drop the F-35B for a Harrier replacement, making it a Harrier would mean giving up the low observability, the extra payload, and being forced to carry external pods just to have the same capabilities as a slick F-35.
>>
>>48416283
all combat aircrafts INCLUDING SUPPOSEDLY VSTOL, need to have Zero-Launch RATO ability baked in.

This should be 3 tiers:

1)some RATO pods mounted on hardpoints for near zero launch, such as sideways off helo-carrier deck.

1)Rocket Sled which works with extended landing gear (on land this could RR track based and reusable, at sea the simple steel sled would be flung into ocean).

3)Standard full Zero-Launch as was tested in late 1950s with single big rocket.

More on all this later
>>
>>48416549
This looks like a bullpup f-16 lmao
>>
>>48416690
>1)Rocket Sled which works with extended landing gear
should be 2), and main benefit of Rocke Sled would be highest take off speed and max load at takeoff, with all hard-points max loaded.

"Rocket Sled" could also have electric motor or other power.
>>
>>48416549
i just want a viper or x-wing gf anons
>>
>>48416459
Harrier was a genious, efficient, cheap design that could still be opearted without shame.
t. frog
>>
>>48416690
And what, rocket assisted landing as well?

>>48416314
The US doesn't have enough catapult carriers to satisfy demand. At any one time, over half of them are in months to multi-year maintenance. This has caused repeated double pump deployments of the remaining ships stressing the crews and equipment. It has also aggravated those deployable ship's eventual overhauls and caused snowball effect as they all get more overworked and broken. The Navy recognizes this and wants to supplement them with the LHD/LHA or a new smaller carrier design. They really do need that SVTOL capability to make it an effective platform. They also definitely screwed up with the F-35 by letting it get too bloated and expensive. It has tons of cool expensive features that will be fantastic against a peer enemy but completely wasted against the enemies we've actually been fighting the past decade.
>>
File: 20210222_183918.jpg (94 KB, 714x385)
94 KB
94 KB JPG
>>48416269
For some reason I saw this pic and thought I saw the X-02 from Ace Combat
>>
>>48416269
It has exposed fanblades.
>>
>>48416269
>Findom-35
lold

Also it did have VTOL capability, I swear I saw a concept somewhere.

>>48416459
What the fuck is wrong with harrier? It could take off a grass strip, F-35 needs an adamantium landing pad. I would say the harrier is superior for the job at hand that the marines and other nations need done.

And yes, it could be modernized.

AT WORST you could make an F-35B without stealth, which would halve the price and give Australia and Italy something affordable so they can buy more than 12.

t. Russian
>>
>>48418229
>And what, rocket assisted landing as well?
CATOBAR works just fine, but yes.

You could have a set of giant fans blowing FROM THE SHIP upwards which an airplane could land on.
>>
>>48418427
>F-35 needs an adamantium landing pad
This is false, they recently took off from improvised landing strips in the pacific.
>>
File: Armatard.png (72 KB, 1850x355)
72 KB
72 KB PNG
>>48416269
>>
>>48418449
Not vertically.
>>
>>48418521
Singapore bought B's just so they could.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/01/update-f-35-block-4-upgrades-and-new-f-35b-at-sea-users/
>>
>>48418521
>Idiot actually thinks Harriers do vertical takeoffs for anything but show
>>
>>48418565
>beastiality mode

>>48418568
They actually do frequently take off and land vertically from forward bases, it's a marine requirement. They only do short takeoffs from carriers when they're loaded with a lot of equipment.

Besides not even having the ability to take off vertically then what the fuck is the point of it? You can make a STOL plane that does the same thing cheaper.
>>
>>48418427
>What the fuck is wrong with harrier?
It's a cold war bird that unlike other cold war designs was held back by performance
there was supposed to be a supersonic harrier design but it was scrapped
>it could be modernized
Or you could just make something new.
>AT WORST you could make an F-35B without stealth, which would halve the price and give Australia and Italy something affordable so they can buy more than 12
it's the entire package that makes it expensive
aka cramming tech inside the airframe so it doesn't need pods to do basic tasks
angles and RAM coating isn't that big of a deal
and if a jet is going to be your artillery when landing at the beach, it needs stealth

>>48418521
vertical take offs are airshow tricks
you need a forward take off with angled nozzle to get airborne loaded with weapons and some fuel
>>
File: arbdRG0_700b.jpg (68 KB, 700x1244)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
>>48418619
>They actually do frequently take off and land vertically from forward bases, it's a marine requirement.
>>
>>48418619
>You can make a STOL plane that does the same thing cheaper
Ever noticed that we stopped using the term VTOL and now use STOVL?
Vertical takeoffs compromise your fuel and weapons load, while short take offs can be surprisingly short.
"just make a STOL brah" is ridiculous considering how many headaches rolling take offs and vertical landings solve, and designing a STOL only airplane would require 90% of the effort and money of a STOVL
>>
File: unnamed.jpg (53 KB, 350x249)
53 KB
53 KB JPG
People are retarded on the F-35 it's actually an amazing fucking plane. The upfront costs were high, however the capability is unmatched. It has amazing sensor capability and SA more so than an EW aircraft, and it can use it's datalinks to share all of that info straight into ships, other aircraft, and even ground vehicles using Link-16. Tbh it's actually not a bad plane at all, did it cost a lot, yes, will it be worth it, in my opinon yes. I may be flying the F-35C soon if I don't drop super hornets.
>>
>>48418650
>aka cramming tech inside the airframe so it doesn't need pods to do basic tasks
Lets not do that either.

No angles, no ram, no DAS or EOTS, no million dollar helmet that snaps the pilots neck.

Stelth is a meme there are already dozens of counters.
>>
>>48418725

Yeah there are "counters" but the main thing is that stealth regardless of counters buys time. You can get far closer to that SA-7 without getting spiked.
>>
>>48418725
>Yeah, you know eveything that makes the F-35 good?

>Yeah, lets just get rid of all of it.

You are the brainlet of brainlets.
>>
>>48418696
>>48418678
>>48418650
So tl;dr we need a STOL F-35 not a VTOL one.
Just increase the wing area and lift on the F-35A to beyond C levels and it will take off from a helicopter carriers.

>>48418718
>waaaah dont bully!
Literally every sensor on F-35 can be applied to a 4th gen. Aircraft are their engine and their configuration, the avionics are interchangeable.
>>
>>48418743
The F-35 isn't good, nothing attached to it is good. Why do you think people are turning against it?
>>
>>48418764
Nobody is turning against it, even the media has stopped.
>>
>>48418725
>>48418743

The helmet is arguably the best part, I am a huge fan of HMCS, they just need to distribute the weight better so it's not on the front of the helmet. They are already in the process of doing this. Also us pilots are supposed to put their head onto the headrest when we pull, not just yank with their neck cocked.
>>
>>48418753
>So tl;dr we need a STOL F-35 not a VTOL one.
>Just increase the wing area and lift on the F-35A to beyond C levels and it will take off from a helicopter carriers.
You mean the F-35B as it is now?
>>
>>48418764

The pilots who fly it and fly with it sure af aren't against the F-35 I trust them more than some random anon.
>>
>>48418753
>Literally every sensor on F-35 can be applied to a 4th gen. Aircraft are their engine and their configuration, the avionics are interchangeable.
>>
>>48418753
>Aircraft are their engine and their configuration, the avionics are interchangeable
This is incredibly wrong. There needs to be physical space, available electrical power and wiring, etc
>>
>>48418427
>What the fuck is wrong with harrier?
it gets spanked by literally anything else with a jet engine, which makes it useless as a weapon in the Pacific
>>
>>48416314
thats way more complicated than you make it sound like, it requires a whole room and engineers to operate the system, and that would mean compromising on other fronts
>>
>>48418824
>>48418800
>he thinks avionics make the airplane
kek

>>48418787
Pilots arent free agents, they are either test pilots in employ of lockheed martin, or military pilots who are under orders. Their opinions would be useless even if they were totally free agents, as the old saying goes every infantryman wants a tank.

>>48418771
>even the media
The media lockheed marting bought? Even America is close to cancelling the F-35 orders in favor of more F-16s.

>>48418840
F-35 gets spanked by everything with a jet engine, and costs a lot more. The Harrier isn't supposed to get into jet on jet combat, it does the job its made for very well.
>>
File: 30a.jpg (60 KB, 600x450)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
>>48419864
The airframe and avionics are heavily linked. Especially with one that has such an extensive network of sensors integrated into it like the F-35. You can't just take them out and put them in and older plane.

>Pilots arent free agents, they are either test pilots in employ of lockheed martin, or military pilots who are under orders. Their opinions would be useless even if they were totally free agents, as the old saying goes every infantryman wants a tank.
Well, that's an idiotic take. If pilots can't give their honest opinion on aircraft, literally nobody can give first-hand experience. Which I think is the entire point of this stupidity, to eliminate any first-hand positive commentary because you know you can't counter it.

>The media lockheed marting bought? Even America is close to cancelling the F-35 orders in favor of more F-16s.
And you're a fucking idiot.

>F-35 gets spanked by everything with a jet engine, and costs a lot more. The Harrier isn't supposed to get into jet on jet combat, it does the job its made for very well.
Literally none of this is true.
>>
>>48416410
>Australia
Opinion discarded
>>
>>48418341
The Wyvern is pretty much a flat YF-23 with cannards.
>>
>>48418471
There’s like 5 f-35 cope threads up right now and I’d bet money this retard is behind all of them. Why would you care if a country you don’t even like is wasting money on something? It’s a level of delusional cope I can’t even wrap my head around.
>>
File: 1594324605967.jpg (171 KB, 714x1299)
171 KB
171 KB JPG
>>48420788
>>
>>48420863
>Still pretending he wasn't immediately corrected by the pilot he was talking to
>>
>>48416434

But Japan is going to revive that twin tail design in their 6th Gen fighter jet.
>>
Just buy Rafales
>>
>>48421151
>Buy a barely NATO-compatible frog plane that does nothing better than the F-35, is far less survivable, and costs $25m more flyaway
>>
>>48416365
Just get new ships and proper jets. Much cheaper option than trying to sustain B's
>>
>>48416725
EMALS is pretty much just a rocket sled, with electromagnetism instead of a rocket.
>>
>>48416283
Bend marines over, fuck them like they like it. And send them out without planes. Dogs don't need planes.
>>
>>48420788
>us joint general publicly talking about it
>DISCARDED
>>
>>48420636
>You can't just take them out and put them in and older plane.
But you can put them in a new simpler plane.

>Well, that's an idiotic take.
>And you're a fucking idiot.
>Literally none of this is true.
Hard hitting commentary.
>>
>>48421024
Flat like a jap woman :(
>>
>>48416283
With the most merican solution possible, more POWER
>>
File: Game over.png (718 KB, 1273x763)
718 KB
718 KB PNG
>>48420791
>>48418341
Still waiting for this bad boy.
>>
>>48418824
>electrical power
Any jet engine can provide enough power for an entire city bro.
>>
File: peabrain.jpg (8 KB, 200x306)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
>>48422933
>>
>>48422944
Don't be more retarded than you really are, the point is that there is no way a jet engine can not supply a plane needs in electricity.
>>
>>48416269
Why would anyone bring back a 30 year old design?
>>
File: file.png (181 KB, 550x389)
181 KB
181 KB PNG
>>48416269
NGAD (6th gen) can be in service by 2026. F-35's, F-22's and F15EX's are relevant until then (and almost certainly still potent until 2035).

Why would we pull out a design that lost in the 80's?

lmfao
>>
>>48422933
>>48422986
pretty much all buddy-buddy refueling pods and some larger ev pods use a prop on their nose to generate their needed energy since the plane doesn't generate enough or don't have the wiring to supply it to the hardpoint
>>
>>48423096
It's just about fuel management, like the AC in your car, it burns gas. On a war bird you want to save it, but on paper you could power absolutely anything on the plane and much more.
>>
>>48421743
>Literal stupidity
>>
>>48421813
>General
>Trump appointee
>Who was fired soon after
>>
>>48422641
You're so stupid that that's really all that needed to be said.
>>
>>48420863
What does the rest of the quote say? Why do you always leave out the part where the pilot tells him how the f-35 btfo the f-15 and f-16?
>>
>>48416365
Harrier is a useless jet.
>>
>>48416269
>still an option
>F-35 already in service
I think we're past the competition phase, bro.
>>
File: 1575336952921.jpg (368 KB, 1275x715)
368 KB
368 KB JPG
>>48422686
A-anon...
>>
>>48423481
>who was fired

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/108485/general-charles-q-brown-jr/

clearly someone forgot to tell him about it
>>
File: 1599495117777.png (54 KB, 437x202)
54 KB
54 KB PNG
>>48416269
>mfw pakistan is building one
>>
File: 1512933798658.jpg (67 KB, 750x722)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
>>48416699
lmao, was just thinking this
>>
>>48423983
That's not who said it, you absolute mong.
>>
>>48424181
>Bad shoop of the YF-23
>>
>>48423742
>be pilot
>say your country's planes are shit
Things that never happen.
>>
>>48424307
It's almost like the guy who said it was an unqualified Army retiree who knows nothing about fighters and was picked because of political loyalty over actual ability to do the job.
>>
>>48424392
So you choose to believe the guy who is contractually not allowed to say something wrong about the plane.
>>
>>48424535
That's complete bullshit, and you know it. Pilots aren't under any "contract" to have an opinion of their aircraft.

But then again, to trolls like you anything positive about it must be some kind of conspiracy rather than just being truthful.
>>
>>48424237
>his name is LITERALLY on the fucking article states that he is the CURRENT chielf

>NOOO ITS NOT HIM
>>
>>48424551
It's called duty of reserve, you don't comment political decisions, you don't critisize the army choices, etc. It's by contract. I'd be surprized if it doesn't exist in the US army.
>>
>>48425325
>misattributing what Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller said
>When it's literally highlighted in your stupid fucking picture
>>
>>48425336
Or, you know, it's that the pilots, who have first-hand experience on the Panther, actually love it?

And as an Army Vet, the only thing you're specifically barred from is making political commentary while wearing your uniform(or using your status to represent yourself). And the purpose of that is that your politics are yours as a citizen, not as a member of the military.
>>
>>48425385
>Or, you know, it's that the pilots, who have first-hand experience on the Panther, actually love it?
And Russian pilots love Russian planes, French pilots love French planes, chink pilots love chink planes... I wouldn't take it as face value.

>>48425385
>And as an Army Vet, the only thing you're specifically barred from is making political commentary while wearing your uniform
Damn that's light, here it's "shut your mouth as long as you're in service".
>>
>>48422790
I just wanna live in strangereal bros...
>>
>>48425504
>And Russian pilots love Russian planes, French pilots love French planes, chink pilots love chink planes... I wouldn't take it as face value.
Well, there's nobody else with the kind of expertise needed, and US and Israeli pilots get some of the most extensive training hours and more real experience than anyone else, so when they universally rate the F-35 as superior, that has a lot of weight behind it. And the various Flag exercise results are confirming it as well.

>Damn that's light, here it's "shut your mouth as long as you're in service".
There's obviously some things that you can't get away with. Stupid social media posts after you do something UCMJ worthy, for instance, can be put in evidence. Or things that have you in association with groups that violate the Army Values, like being a Stormfronter.
>>
>>48425644
>US and Israeli pilots get some of the most extensive training hours and more real experience than anyone else,
Did USAF ever deployed this plane in combat missions, just out of curiosity?
>>
>>48425742
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/04/30/us-air-force-conducts-airstrikes-with-f-35-for-first-time-ever/
Almost 2 tears ago.
>>
>>48425788
thx
>>
>>48418725
>no million dollar helmet that snaps the pilots neck
inb4 vidya but when DCS added the scorpion helmet or whatever to the A-10, people who had the sim for years said that the helmet gives you so much advantage it was like using cheat codes
just looking outside the cockpit and marking targets on the ground allows you to do with the A-10 what normies think the A-10 was designed to do from the start
>>
>>48416269
Ah yes the design which had to be completely redesigned because of a fatal frame design flaw that caused frame cracking mid competition. the same design that only ever managed to complete landing and take off certification while the yf-22 was achieving weapons certification. The same design which was NEVER completed.

Northrop is cool but this is nothing but an ace combat wank plane that was never ever finished and is painfully out of date.
>>
>>48426279
Yeah DAS+ Helmet it would be pretty cool on the A-10, honestly it's kind of fucking useless on the shitbird why don't we just transfer it?
>>
>>48428748
>Why don't we take the helmet from the plane designed to use it and waste billions adding it to a plane worse in every way that needs to be retired already?



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.